Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


I disapprove of what you ...
Today at 07:22 AM

Pakistan: The Nation.....
Today at 03:07 AM

France, the World Cup’s l...
Yesterday at 06:22 PM

Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 01:01 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
July 14, 2018, 11:51 PM

Harun Yahya _ Adnan Okta...
July 14, 2018, 04:24 AM

تنطيف الروح والجسد ٠٠٠٠كي...
July 13, 2018, 12:43 PM

Funny/Cool/Interesting me...
July 11, 2018, 08:58 PM

World Cup 2018
July 11, 2018, 08:26 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
July 11, 2018, 01:24 PM

"You left Islam because o...
July 11, 2018, 12:57 PM

Scientists and .............
July 10, 2018, 01:19 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: I disapprove of what you say

 (Read 1122 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • I disapprove of what you say
     OP - November 06, 2013, 02:09 PM

    I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
    -Voltaire-

    Do you agree with it?
    Now that I have left Islam, for me it's even impossible to defend someone who is saying " women are inferior". How can I defend someone whom I totally disagree with? Is it intolerant?
    Freedom of expression means everything, so would you defend someone saying that " wife beating is not a big deal"?
    Or in general, defending someone promoting violence ?
  • I disapprove of what you say
     Reply #1 - November 06, 2013, 02:34 PM

    You're not defending the message, you're defending the right for someone to express what they think, even if it's batshit crazy. This way, opposing and counter arguments can freely be expressed too and hopefully, right minded people will know which message to take on board and accept. But people are batshit crazy anyway so fuck 'em.
  • I disapprove of what you say
     Reply #2 - November 06, 2013, 08:08 PM

    ^ That. yes

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • I disapprove of what you say
     Reply #3 - November 06, 2013, 08:34 PM

    Hitch on free speech
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • I disapprove of what you say
     Reply #4 - November 06, 2013, 09:24 PM

    I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
    -Voltaire-

    Do you agree with it?
    Now that I have left Islam, for me it's even impossible to defend someone who is saying " women are inferior". How can I defend someone whom I totally disagree with? Is it intolerant?
    Freedom of expression means everything, so would you defend someone saying that " wife beating is not a big deal"?
    Or in general, defending someone promoting violence ?


    Yes. Our non-religious views were perceived as Bat-shit crazy in the past, and the right to freely speak quite certainly helped us gain credibility. I think that there are many grey areas though.
  • I disapprove of what you say
     Reply #5 - November 06, 2013, 10:00 PM

    You're not defending the message, you're defending the right for someone to express what they think, even if it's batshit crazy.

    Yeah, i confused the two ideas. Ok now i start defending their right to say bullshit. What if i go on street screaming "islam is bullshit" (which currently i cant) and they consider me an islamophobe? Will they listen to my bullshit?
    Expression of freedom means everything and it shouldnt be even one-sided

    Thanks for the video!  Afro


  • I disapprove of what you say
     Reply #6 - November 07, 2013, 07:04 AM

    Ok now i start defending their right to say bullshit. What if i go on street screaming "islam is bullshit" (which currently i cant) and they consider me an islamophobe? Will they listen to my bullshit?
    Expression of freedom means everything and it shouldnt be even one-sided


    This Afro

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • I disapprove of what you say
     Reply #7 - July 07, 2018, 10:33 PM

    Since international audiences tend to not understand my natural twang, I was using my "none Brits listening" voice. I start at 1:01:20.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvNeZnr-Sfo

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • I disapprove of what you say
     Reply #8 - July 08, 2018, 12:11 AM

    And since we're on about the freedom to say what others might not like us to say, check out The Dawahman Song (which was not illegal when I first posted it, but is illegal now if anyone. such as Dawah Man or his fans, take offense). I'm not kidding, a hate crime is now not dependant on an actual hate crime being committed, but if someone claims to have an emotional boo-boo. Here are an example of some recent enforcement of hate crime *cough* blasphemy *cough* laws in the UK.

    Count Dankula: made a youtube video. The content - saying his girlfriend's pet dog was the cutest thing in the world, the nazis were the most evil thing in the world, and thus teaching the dog to preform a nazi salute (the cutest thing in the world doing the most evil thing in the world) was laugh out loud funny, mostly as it would annoy his girlfriend. Bad taste? Yes. A criminal matter? A few years ago no. Since no one actually reported being offended, the local Sheriff watched this vid and then spent a considerable amount of time finding a jew who worked for the same people as the Sheriff to say "He hurt my feelings". Couldn't find a member of the public, had to find someone who worked with him to say it.

    That it was a joke. and that Dankula clearly said in the clip he thought the nazis were evil, matters not. The judge said clearly that intent does not matter. The court decides what the intent was. A sadder day for Britain you will not find.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/count-dankula-nazi-pug-salutes-mark-meechan-fine-sentenced-a8317751.html

    A teenage girl from Liverpool posts song lyrics from the US artist Snap Dogg in tribute to a local thirteen-year-old-boy who died. The lyrics posted were of his favorite song. However, someone found the lyrics of the favourite song of a dead thirteen-year-old-boy posted in his memory offensive, and so the teenager was dragged to court, found guilty of a racist hate crime, fined a small fortune, electronically tagged, and confined from leaving the house at certain hours. For posting the lyrics of a dead thirteen-year-old boy's favourite song in his memory.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921

    Snap Dogg is, at the time of posting this, still welcome to come to the UK and sing his song at our biggest arenas.

    I haven't even mentioned the hundreds of other cases I'm aware of that have happened, such as the atheist who had a police team come to his home because a catholic was offended he didn't take catholicism serious enough, or the 60+-year-old woman who had the police barge into her home and arrest her in her pajamas for saying to someone "Have a gay day", quoting quran and/or hadith, or the thousands of people who have had the police knocking on the door for making a comment on twitter or facebook someone somewhere in the world didn't like.

    And, for the very first time in the history of English common law. the courts have seen fit to ban artists from making art (music) without police permission.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/15/london-drill-rap-gang-banned-from-making-music-due-to-threat-of-violence

    "Oi mate, do you have a permit for those thoughts?"

    When the fuck did we get blasphemy laws? Who voted for this?

    Those charlitens at TellMama must be orgaseming.

    Here's my little hate crime, which was not a hate crime when I first posted it, but now is, should any little piggy squeal "Mah feelz!" And remember, as the judge in the Count Dankula case said, it doesn't matter how I meant it. Content is irrelevant. It is not for me (the creator) to decide, it is for the judge to decide.

    For the first time in my life, I am afraid of my own country.

    movingfeet added on the sound. Bless her. Slightly out of sync, but just a first draft.

    https://soundcloud.com/raven-lovecraft/dawah

    Super-muslim extraordinaire
    Dawhman! Dawahman!
    Runs around with a cameracrew
    Dawahman! Dawahman!
     
    Rescues unbelievers from the fires of hell
    Dawahman! Dawahman!
    Unless something better's on TV
    Dawahman! Dawahman!

    His brain's overloading
    It has a propaganda coating
    Textbook case for Sigmund Freud
    Dawahman! Dawahman!
     
    Check out Imran ibn Mansur
    Rapping muslim lad
    Went surfing on the internet
    And was influenced by what he saw there

    He turned into the Dawahman
    He's strong and super-quick
    He drives the sensible crazy
    'Cause he's a lunatic!
     
    His home base is the Dawahcave
    Dawahman! Dawahman!
    Floyd the Barber cuts his hair
    Dawahman! Chimpanzee!
     
    Rides around in the Dawahmobile
    Dawahman! Dawahman!
    Hopes to make a movie deal
    Dawah me! Dawah you!
     
    He's here to save the nation
    So stay tuned to this station
    If not, we'll be unemployed
    Dawahman! Dawahman!
    Dududududududud!
    Dawahman!!!


    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • I disapprove of what you say
     Reply #9 - July 08, 2018, 10:27 AM

    Quote
    Count Dankula: made a youtube video. The content - saying his girlfriend's pet dog was the cutest thing in the world, the nazis were the most evil thing in the world, and thus teaching the dog to preform a nazi salute (the cutest thing in the world doing the most evil thing in the world) was laugh out loud funny, mostly as it would annoy his girlfriend. Bad taste? Yes. A criminal matter? A few years ago no.

    I wonder what might be different about the political scene in the Anglosphere in 2018 to, say 2008 or 1998.

    Also, for a guy who definitely, absolutely, no sir isn't a Nazi, your man sure manages to be bafflingly popular with kekistani dipshits. I wonder why.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qa5iNloHwA





    Quote
    That it was a joke. and that Dankula clearly said in the clip he thought the nazis were evil, matters not. The judge said clearly that intent does not matter. The court decides what the intent was. A sadder day for Britain you will not find.

    It is, indeed, the job of the court to filter out the discrepancy between stated and actual intent; without this, there is no criminal law. What about this is even remotely surprising?

    As for the Police cracking down on drill, this has more to do with how policing is racialised in London in particular; the history (and prehistory) of form 696 ought to tell you more about this than anything else. Given the hugely divergent contexts, just how is this related to blasphemy, exactly?

    Quote
    When the fuck did we get blasphemy laws? Who voted for this?

    Those charlitens at TellMama must be orgaseming.


    I have my own problems with Tell Mama, but what they do is valuable because there are so few organisations with any such profile that stand up in public for people who have been on the wrong end of anti-Muslim discrimination. You think this is bad for some reason, and have said as much before. Me, I get the feeling that you're holding back on us.

    Also, preemptively claiming martyrdom tends to get funny looks offline as well as on, but whatever.
  • I disapprove of what you say
     Reply #10 - July 10, 2018, 02:40 AM

    I wonder what might be different about the political scene in the Anglosphere in 2018 to, say 2008 or 1998.


    Content and intent doesn't matter. Try picturing Monty Python's Life of Brian or Little Britain being made today. Fuck, Galileo presenting his findings that the Earth orbits the sun, in spite of the deeply held religious beliefs of the people at the time. All it takes is for someone to feel offended, which those people certainly did.

    for a guy who definitely, absolutely, no sir isn't a Nazi, your man sure manages to be bafflingly popular with kekistani dipshits. I wonder why.


    You do see the post right above where I quote INcePtion saying

    Ok now i start defending their right to say bullshit. What if i go on street screaming "islam is bullshit" (which currently i cant) and they consider me an islamophobe? Will they listen to my bullshit?
    Expression of freedom means everything and it shouldnt be even one-sided


    and I respond with a Afro, right?

    I suppose I have to agree with the man's views and/or supporters to be against what happened to him? Do you honestly think that matters? I remember elsewhere on the internet seeing people post in his defense when Ricky Gervais gave his support, and then withdraw it when Tommy Robinson gave his. I personally don't care if he's being supported by the Archangel Micheal or Lucifer himself. Fucking pathetic cunts who have no comprehension that the law of the land affects them as well, which I actually realize, hence the reason you can find posts on this site of me defending Anjem Choudary's right to speak against Hassan (whom I deeply respect and admire, but disagreed with on this subject) saying he should be banned, and decrying attempts to muzzle him. Did anyone read that and think I was supporting everybody's mate Andy's views? Or perhaps I was supporting Seeker's homophobia when I advocated him having his ban lifted, as I took into account his mental/emotional state when he made those comments and realized he'd cooled down, instead of, I don't know, saying he didn't get to decide? And I can't even make the comparison with Seeker and the Dankula judge, as they're too far apart, which in itself is terrifying, as I apparently have more common sense than a British judge.

    It is, indeed, the job of the court to filter out the discrepancy between stated and actual intent; without this, there is no criminal law.


    THis isn't a case of figuring out if it was murder or manslaughter, this is a judge point blank saying it doesn't matter. This is an absolute bastardisation of innocent until proven guilty, and blasphemy laws by any other name. Would you support me being imprisoned for my Dawah Man Song if a random person came along and said it offended them? How about any of the posts on this site that might hurt the feelings of a random person reading, regardless of the intent of the poster, as, in the words of the judge, you don't get to decide your own intent? All it takes to make it a criminal matter is for someone to feel it's offensive. How the hell can an ex-muslim not be outraged by this?

    As for the Police cracking down on drill, this has more to do with how policing is racialised in London in particular; the history (and prehistory) of form 696 ought to tell you more about this than anything else. Given the hugely divergent contexts, just how is this related to blasphemy, exactly?


    I don't understand your intended meaning by that comment, any more than I would if you'd said that in reply to a comment condemning the silencing/imprisonment/mob murder of atheist bloggers (please feel free to clarify your point if you feel I don't address it). As I said back in 2014 on the "An Open Letter to David Cameron by Sheikh Haitham Al-Haddad" thread, I believe in freedom of speech, and I clarified what I meant by that. How you can't see that banning a song because "policing is racialized" is blasphemy by another name is beyond me. Shall we call is racial blasphemy? It makes as much sense.

    I have my own problems with Tell Mama, but what they do is valuable because there are so few organisations with any such profile that stand up in public for people who have been on the wrong end of anti-Muslim discrimination. You think this is bad for some reason, and have said as much before. Me, I get the feeling that you're holding back on us.


    I have never once said that is bad. What I said recently is the same thing I said historically. Back in 2013-2015 (I think) in a thread where I was chatting with movingfeet, I first said why I didn't like TellMama, and it was exactly the same as what I said in the thread you quoted. They are disingenuous and deliberately misleading, which is the whole reason they lost government funding. Let me just quote a comment of mine from the thread you posted:

    Does it actually say that? Rather amazing with how obsessive about "islamophobia" Tell MAMA is. Never seen a single accusation they reported/counted that turned out to be false they corrected themselves on. Probably busy reporting tweets the don't like alongside real world violence without distinction.


    There is nothing there that says I have a problem with highlighting/reporting anti-muslim discrimination, only a criticism of inaccurate reporting. I absolutely support and champion reporting such things accurately. If we think of the overall point/stated goal of TellMama, you will receive nothing but praise from me. How they go about it is what I criticise. TellMama is obsessive to the point of being dishonest, as we have seen with the historical blind acceptance of reports/claims and the lack of fact checking. Also with updating stats when it turned out a claim wasn't true. And yes, I do think that if they keep making no distinction between mean tweets and actual real world incidents, let alone not separating reports from the UK with reports from elsewhere on the planet, yet publishing it collectively as if it all happened here, may lead to a"Boy Who Cried Wolf" mentality (which is the point I first made with movingfeet years ago, absolutely no different from what I said recently, and still a fear I have these years later, not only because I have loved ones that would be targeted because they "look muslim", but because I have empathy for my fellow man) that will only lead to islamophobia in this country not being taken seriously, as people will think it's just a random comment on facebook which might not even have come from the UK. They also say quoting verses from quran/hadith is/can be islamophobia, and include people quoting quran and sunnah as statistics (where the head of TellMama himself can be found saing that in an interview with the site Voice of Saleem) which may have come from abroad, in their reports on violence against muslims in the UK. Basically, they lie, hence the government stopping their funding.

    If you feel I'm over-reacting and that the method of Tell Mama would not result in a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" national mentality, then, okay, we can have a chat about why that is if you like, but I will not apologise for being concerned at the possibility of a standard national view of islamophobia not being taken seriously as the norm. Which is the entire point I made to movingfeet years ago.

    You seem to be insinuating a mentality and world view on me that I not only do not have, but that if I did have, surely would have become apparent in the years I've been posting here, and, since my views on freedom of speech have been consistent since the day I first joined this forum, I fail to understand why you're only highlighting your opposition to them now, and not back when I joined five years ago.

    Have you only just started reading my posts?

    And yes, as when I first joined CEMB, I still consider the jewish members of the ACLU, who, in 1978, defended a Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie, Illinois, where many Holocaust survivors lived, absolute heroes. Not because they agreed with them, but because they believed in free speech, and understood the danger of letting others dictate what you can and cannot say. Absolute fucking heroes and people that not only would I 100% support, but people I want to model myself after. And I'm sure they would have appreciated your points about how the nazis, who's rights they were defending, were supported by national socialists, as much as I appreciate me champing Dankula's rights with your response of his kekistani supporters. As if that even matters in the slightest.

    There is nothing in my post I would take back (unless you can show me how my thinking is wrong), and there is nothing in the above post that shows views that differ from any other post I've made in my years here.

    What I said in the youtube vid I posted, I could easily have said before I ever joined this site, and, as you can see with my response to INcePtion's post on this very thread, is a view I very much held way back in 2013, as well as now.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • I disapprove of what you say
     Reply #11 - July 10, 2018, 12:38 PM

    Quote
    And yes, as when I first joined CEMB, I still consider the jewish members of the ACLU, who, in 1978, defended a Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie, Illinois, where many Holocaust survivors lived, absolute heroes. Not because they agreed with them, but because they believed in free speech, and understood the danger of letting others dictate what you can and cannot say. Absolute fucking heroes and people that not only would I 100% support, but people I want to model myself after.

    One gives Nazis room to move at one's peril if one is not a Nazi.

    This approach is not merely naive, but suicidally dangerous. It assumes that there is are no real-world consequences to allowing such people to speak, which is patently untrue; making a virtue of letting reactionary psychopaths speak and march assumes that this is all they will ever do. It is this sort of idiot solipsism - that assumes that there is no such thing as power or self-interest, just sets of competing ideas on a level playing field where social status, wealth and proximity to power have no impact - that leaves the powerless stranded. It pretends that people do not use the expression of their ideas to intimidate others into silence, ironically enough; if the state helps them on their way - why, so much the better.

    A case in point: you have, no doubt, heard of the Battle of Cable Street, and on the strength of your expressed views, it sounds like you have let the British Union of Fascists march unimpeded in the East End if you'd been in a position to do so. All they were doing, after all, was trying to exercise their right to free speech - and better still, the Metropolitan Police were guaranteeing their right to do so (as a disinterested body in matters of race in 1936 as 2006, naturally).

    You bring up ACLU's defence of the First Amendment rights of Nazis in supporting the rights of a few dozen Nazis to march through an area populated by Holocaust survivors and their relatives. It did something not dissimilar when it lobbied for the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. You know, the same one in which kekistanis and other assorted right-wing dipshits assaulted and intimidated counterprotestors, killing one of them. This led to a flurry of resignations in the ACLU, as the dawning realisation that they were acting as fig leaves for Nazis finally hit home; strangely enough, I understand that membership dropped in the aftermath of the Skokie incident too.

    Quote
    And I'm sure they would have appreciated your points about how the nazis, who's rights they were defending, were supported by national socialists, as much as I appreciate me champing Dankula's rights with your response of his kekistani supporters. As if that even matters in the slightest.

    Said with all the self-assurance of someone with no real stake in the final outcome. This is emphatically the wrong site for anyone to defend kekistanis and their ilk on, and that's the last word on the matter. We are against anything that enables fascists to organise and act, and are extremely unsympathetic to any defence of their beliefs or actions.

    As to how nazis were supported by national socialists - er, that's generally how it goes.

    Quote
    Have you only just started reading my posts?

    I don't go out of my way to read them, sorry.

    Quote
    If you feel I'm over-reacting and that the method of Tell Mama would not result in a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" national mentality, then, okay, we can have a chat about why that is if you like, but I will not apologise for being concerned at the possibility of a standard national view of islamophobia not being taken seriously as the norm. Which is the entire point I made to movingfeet years ago.

    My bold: I doubt it's actually taken all that seriously as an issue right now by the press, and certainly not by our government. In case you've missed it, "boy who cried wolf" is a tactical response to criticism for abhorrent behaviour that long predates Tell Mama, and isn't about to be made worse because they do what they do. Blaming the victim is day 1, week 1 stuff.

    Quote
    You seem to be insinuating a mentality and world view on me that I not only do not have, but that if I did have, surely would have become apparent in the years I've been posting here, and, since my views on freedom of speech have been consistent since the day I first joined this forum, I fail to understand why you're only highlighting your opposition to them now, and not back when I joined five years ago.

    My own views have been free to develop, but I'm fairly sure I've never been for the fetishisation of free speech (not least because I don't think it really exists); if your views really haven't changed, well done, I guess. I tend to look askance at self-declared free speech warriors in 2018 for much the same reasons that I have for viewing self-described 'Classical Liberals' in 2018 as liars to a man; good faith is never really what one gets with either.

    Quote
    And yes, I do think that if they keep making no distinction between mean tweets and actual real world incidents

    A racist tweet is not much different to being racially abused to one's face, except if a threat of imminent bodily harm accompanies the latter. Both *are* real world incidents.

    Quote
    And, for the very first time in the history of English common law. the courts have seen fit to ban artists from making art (music) without police permission.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/15/london-drill-rap-gang-banned-from-making-music-due-to-threat-of-violence

    "Oi mate, do you have a permit for those thoughts?"

    When the fuck did we get blasphemy laws? Who voted for this?

    Remember this? This is what I was referring to when I was talking about drill. The Met have form when it comes to policing black music, and if you choose to stay ignorant of it, that's your business.

    Quote
    THis isn't a case of figuring out if it was murder or manslaughter, this is a judge point blank saying it doesn't matter. This is an absolute bastardisation of innocent until proven guilty, and blasphemy laws by any other name. Would you support me being imprisoned for my Dawah Man Song if a random person came along and said it offended them? How about any of the posts on this site that might hurt the feelings of a random person reading, regardless of the intent of the poster, as, in the words of the judge, you don't get to decide your own intent? All it takes to make it a criminal matter is for someone to feel it's offensive. How the hell can an ex-muslim not be outraged by this?

    And the judge was making a point of law. Section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 is the relevant statute, and DPP v Collins the most relevant case law. I understand that in determining whether a message is 'grossly offensive', the court has to ‘apply the standards of an open and just multi-racial society’ and the content of the message ‘must be judged taking account of their context and all relevant circumstances’; the other test is whether they knew the content of their message to be grossly offensive or to be aware that they may be understood as such. Having established the latter, it wasn't much of a stretch to establish the former. The court deciding what the intent was is exactly consistent with the nature of the offence he was being tried for, so.. again, this is exactly what they are supposed to do.

    If you really want to claim martyrdom by arguing that your 'song' carries equivalent potential for offence to some dipshit repeatedly saying 'gas the jews' on Youtube, go for it, but it's a hell of a comparison to make.

    Quote
    I suppose I have to agree with the man's views and/or supporters to be against what happened to him? Do you honestly think that matters? I remember elsewhere on the internet seeing people post in his defense when Ricky Gervais gave his support, and then withdraw it when Tommy Robinson gave his. I personally don't care if he's being supported by the Archangel Micheal or Lucifer himself.

    You don't have to, but it's a fool who doesn't take it upon themselves to find out what a cause is being used for. If you're on the same side as a fucking Nazi, you're part of the problem.

    Quote
    Content and intent doesn't matter. Try picturing Monty Python's Life of Brian or Little Britain being made today. Fuck, Galileo presenting his findings that the Earth orbits the sun, in spite of the deeply held religious beliefs of the people at the time. All it takes is for someone to feel offended, which those people certainly did.

    This is utter nonsense.

  • I disapprove of what you say
     Reply #12 - July 11, 2018, 11:40 PM

    One gives Nazis room to move at one's peril if one is not a Nazi.

    This approach is not merely naive, but suicidally dangerous. It assumes that there is are no real-world consequences to allowing such people to speak, which is patently untrue; making a virtue of letting reactionary psychopaths speak and march assumes that this is all they will ever do. It is this sort of idiot solipsism - that assumes that there is no such thing as power or self-interest, just sets of competing ideas on a level playing field where social status, wealth and proximity to power have no impact - that leaves the powerless stranded. It pretends that people do not use the expression of their ideas to intimidate others into silence, ironically enough; if the state helps them on their way - why, so much the better.

    A case in point: you have, no doubt, heard of the Battle of Cable Street, and on the strength of your expressed views, it sounds like you have let the British Union of Fascists march unimpeded in the East End if you'd been in a position to do so. All they were doing, after all, was trying to exercise their right to free speech - and better still, the Metropolitan Police were guaranteeing their right to do so (as a disinterested body in matters of race in 1936 as 2006, naturally).

    You bring up ACLU's defence of the First Amendment rights of Nazis in supporting the rights of a few dozen Nazis to march through an area populated by Holocaust survivors and their relatives. It did something not dissimilar when it lobbied for the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. You know, the same one in which kekistanis and other assorted right-wing dipshits assaulted and intimidated counterprotestors, killing one of them. This led to a flurry of resignations in the ACLU, as the dawning realisation that they were acting as fig leaves for Nazis finally hit home; strangely enough, I understand that membership dropped in the aftermath of the Skokie incident too.


    One does not defeat a nazi by becoming a nazi. The fact I have a different take on the issue does not mean I think there are no real world consequences, it means I have a different view of said consequences. I would have absolutely protested against them, as I did when fascists came to my town and I was in the thick of it opposing them. While I absolutely recognised their right to express their views, I also recognized my right to express mine, and used it. Free speech does not mean the state helps them. I support freedom of speech, not murder. That piece of shit cunt was a killer and I absolutely support the full weight of the law being thrown at him. The right you have to swing your fist ends at my face. I'm shocked I have to explain this. There is a difference between freedom of speech and action.

    Said with all the self-assurance of someone with no real stake in the final outcome. This is emphatically the wrong site for anyone to defend kekistanis and their ilk on, and that's the last word on the matter. We are against anything that enables fascists to organise and act, and are extremely unsympathetic to any defence of their beliefs or actions.


    Are you not reading my words? I am not defending kekistanis and their ilk, any more than I was defending Andy Choudary when chatting with Hassan or Al-Haddad when I supported his right to speak.

    Here. Here's the thread with Sheikh Haitham Al-Haddad. Tell me how I'm supporting him or his ideology. Please, I want to know. https://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=14886.0

    I'm an ethnic minority who has never been mistaken for a native Brit in his life (check out some of my posts on the thread you started "The elephant in the room: this forum and People of Colour" https://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=31243.msg873990#msg873990 and the private messages you've seen from me). Ever been beaten so bad you black out at five years old because you're "foreign looking"? I have. Broken bones as well. All my life I was the funny looking one, the foreign looking one, the one who doesn't look local. My mum's side of the family is Irish. We got dog shit shoved through our letterbox because of anti-Irish sentiment in response to IRA terrorism and daily verbal abuse. Physical as well. I have a relative who's home was firebombed while she and her young children (my cousins) were inside. I've had my grandad looking after me and we stop off at a pub for a pint or the toilet and people think he's a pub bomber as my earliest memories. Add on to that marrying into a black family. I've had people call me a nigger lover and ask why I'm with a nigger when I'm walking through town or at the park with my cousins, and in my twenties (basically now) called a race traitor because of the colour of the girl I fell in love with. Plus I have a goddaughter who is mixed race. And, oh, as you can see in the "elephant in the room" thread,  I'm still singled out as an ethnic minority to this day. In fact, here's a quote:

    recently I was having a debate with someone on immigration and they abruptly spat out something about me being "foreign-looking" and demanded to know where my family is from


    I absolutely have a stake in this.

    As to how nazis were supported by national socialists - er, that's generally how it goes.


    Mate, seriously?

    I don't go out of my way to read them, sorry.


    No worries, but you'd think you'd do at least a little fact-checking before twisting my points to make out I'm saying something I'm not. Or, you know, ask me my opinion instead of assuming it, like I support "kekistanis and their ilk" or some other nonsense. Just to clarify, so there is no confusion:

    Nazis are evil. Scum of the Earth. The filth of filth. And while I support their right to have their views, I would never support those specific views and would, as I have in the past, actively oppose them. Nazism is bad. Nazism is evil. Nazism is the antithesis of all I hold good in the world. The fact I recognize their right to hold nazi views does not mean I agree with them. You tell me there's a nazi march in your town, I'll be right there with you protesting against them.

    My bold: I doubt it's actually taken all that seriously as an issue right now by the press, and certainly not by our government. In case you've missed it, "boy who cried wolf" is a tactical response to criticism for abhorrent behaviour that long predates Tell Mama, and isn't about to be made worse because they do what they do. Blaming the victim is day 1, week 1 stuff.


    Which, as I said, is my problem with TellMAMA's approach. I think it'll re-enforce such thinking. I am concerned about the seriousness of which the victim is taken, which I tried to make clear. And, as I said before, if you dispute that may be the outcome, I'm happy to have that conversation with you. I would rather be corrected on a mistaken thought than continue to live in ignorance.

    My own views have been free to develop, but I'm fairly sure I've never been for the fetishisation of free speech (not least because I don't think it really exists); if your views really haven't changed, well done, I guess. I tend to look askance at self-declared free speech warriors in 2018 for much the same reasons that I have for viewing self-described 'Classical Liberals' in 2018 as liars to a man; good faith is never really what one gets with either.


    Plenty of my views have changed, as I am willing to change my mind. I've simply never heard an argument against free speech that I've found convincing. Freedom of speech is not the right to slander or shout fire in a crowded theater. Again, I'm willing to have this conversation.

    A racist tweet is not much different to being racially abused to one's face, except if a threat of imminent bodily harm accompanies the latter. Both *are* real world incidents.


    Just to make sure there's no chance of me being misread, I am talking about people expressing a view or opinion, not harassment. There is nothing in my view that says you cannot challenge views and/or opinions. Freedom of speech is precisely what allows you to do this. If you do mean harrassment, well obviously it's a different context, and I don't dispute the harm. I'm not advocating for harassment any more than I'm advocating stalking, and certainly not the legalisation of harassment/stalking, which none of the examples I gave fall under.

    .Remember this? This is what I was referring to when I was talking about drill. The Met have form when it comes to policing black music, and if you choose to stay ignorant of it, that's your business.


    It has nothing to do with ignorance. It has to do with blasphemy, which I can easily define as the criminalisation of expression, and which that absolutely falls under. I am perfectly happy to discuss the historical context of this with you, but can we agree that having to ask the coppers if you can do a song is fucked up and state restriction of artistic expression (free speech) has no place in a free society?

    And the judge was making a point of law. Section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 is the relevant statute, and DPP v Collins the most relevant case law. I understand that in determining whether a message is 'grossly offensive', the court has to ‘apply the standards of an open and just multi-racial society’ and the content of the message ‘must be judged taking account of their context and all relevant circumstances’; the other test is whether they knew the content of their message to be grossly offensive or to be aware that they may be understood as such. Having established the latter, it wasn't much of a stretch to establish the former. The court deciding what the intent was is exactly consistent with the nature of the offence he was being tried for, so.. again, this is exactly what they are supposed to do.


    The Danklua judge said clearly it was irrelevant.

    If you really want to claim martyrdom by arguing that your 'song' carries equivalent potential for offence to some dipshit repeatedly saying 'gas the jews' on Youtube, go for it, but it's a hell of a comparison to make.


    I don't have to. All it takes is for someone to say they were offended. Context is irrelevant. If you want a comparison, how about the teenage girl from Liverpool? Can you honestly say that if it can happen to her it can't happen to me? And that wasn't even her song. Why couldn't it happen to me? If we accept the examples I gave as just, we are opening the door for totalitarianism and fascism. I'm personally against such things. Also, what's with the quotation marks around the word "song"? You making a comment about my vocals? I did say in the original thread that it was a draft. Grin

    You don't have to, but it's a fool who doesn't take it upon themselves to find out what a cause is being used for. If you're on the same side as a fucking Nazi, you're part of the problem.


    I can't wait to see how I'm supporting Haitham Al-Haddad. Will you be giving a point by point response of my support of fascist theocracy, or a general summery? Here's the link again in case you missed it. https://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=14886.0 Maybe I can dig up the thread with Hassan on everybody's mate Andy, and you can explain to me how I'm supporting his views as well.

    This is utter nonsense.


    Tell that to the Dankula judge. And the Liverpool one. This is how a fascist society starts.

    You don't have to, but it's a fool who doesn't take it upon themselves to find out what a cause is being used for. If you're on the same side as a fucking Nazi, you're part of the problem.


    I'm quoting this bit again because I've been sitting here thinking of your closing comment for a while now and I do want to give more than a flippant reply. You may be interested to know that I actually see exactly where you're coming from. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Or at least I think I do. Feel free to correct me.

    I think what it ultimately comes down to is a view that good ideas will defeat bad ideas vs bad ideas will win out over good ideas. Therefore, if you champion the right for all ideas to be heard, you are opening the doors for the bad ideas to win. To my mind, this is like saying the entire point of CEMB is to persecute muslims.

    The thing I can't help but notice when you go on about free speech and nazis, is that, the nazis oppressed free speech, because Hitler was terrified it would lead to him being overthrown. He abolished democracy for fear he'd be voted out, and engaged in mass propaganda on anyone who used their free speech to oppose him, going as far as to brainwash children into reporting on their parents. Same with Stalin, Mao, Pot, and every other fascist dictator I can name. When I see actual evil, when I see nazi germany, when I see North Korea, I don't see a result of free speech, I see the result of the restriction of speech.

    When I see free speech, I see women's rights, minorities rights, human rights, abolition of slavery, religious freedom, all the things any decent person would cherish.

    When I see your posts, toor, and the people who say similar, I honestly wonder how my championing of the reverse of nazism means I'm championing nazism. I understand if you disagree with me on what will lead to a fascist society (I can only assume this is the case, as I can't see anything else that would cause you to respond to my advocating for what I view as the greatest defence again nazism/fascism with supporting nazism/fascism), but indicating that I actually want/support that is fucked up. And while you may not have been reading my posts, I've been reading yours, and I'm quite confident you can understand it's not that I'm pro nazi/fascist/whatever, it's that I'm against it and I see the suppression of free speech as paving the road for it.

    I may be wrong. I am very willing to admit that. But I do think my world view (or fetish as you call it) is the sole guard against nazis, dictators, tyrants, fascists and the like. If we agree that it should be not only illegal but criminal to speak certain thoughts, what if someone decides it's illegal to speak against fascists? The only safeguard I can see is to not have laws against free speech in the first place. How else do you speak out against it?

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • I disapprove of what you say
     Reply #13 - Today at 05:09 AM

    So, going on toor's earlier insinuation about me supporting a nazi when I'm so liberal I could have written any number of my posts on CEMB with one hand, while wanking off Jeremy Corbyn with the other, I looked up Count Dankula. I wasn't going to look him up as he was irreverent as an individual, but, I looked him up a day or two ago, and what I found out about him is that this particular shit poster (shock comedian) is a historically self described anarchist and anti-fascist. In fact, I went onto his twitter and the first post I saw was commenting on how him and his girlfriend had gotten a new dog, and how the famous "nazi" pug was carrying around a tiki torch and complaining about being replaced. Clearly a liberal piss take at the right wing notion of the "great replacement".

    I also managed to find a vid saying the exact same thing I said, by ultra liberal comedian Tom Walker (probably because he's white. Not like he's affected by the laws in his own country) in his use of the character Jonathan Pie, a liberal so far left, he probably would of gotten on his hands and knees and licked up the cum I wanked out of Jeremy Corbyn.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2bVS40cz0

    I saw in the comments that a fellow comedian has asked the police if this clearly comedic and fictitious act could result in the bloke being charged with a hate crime, and the police said this was indeed the case. I cannot describe how disappointed I am that a left winger did not cover this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfrv3JU4pGE

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • I disapprove of what you say
     Reply #14 - Today at 07:22 AM

    lso, for a guy who definitely, absolutely, no sir isn't a Nazi, your man sure manages to be bafflingly popular with kekistani dipshits. I wonder why.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qa5iNloHwA


    I just watched this again for the first time in I don't know how long. How does toor view this as pro-nazi? I can only imagine that nazis, in his eyes, aren't actual nazis, who, you know, do things that mark them as actual nazis, just people toor doesn't like. A man who clearly thought he could silence me with racism, by implying my race/skin colour meant I don't deserve a say. toor, I can't wait to see how my objection towards you as an individual is something you spin into some bollocks of me hating all non-white people, despite none white people being part of my fucking clan, and making your hatred of white people into some sort of virtue.

    I really want to make a reply studying toor's posts in this thread. It gives object lessons on how certain elements of the left have failed them.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »