Lauren Southern to speak in NZ

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Lauren Southern to speak in NZ

1 | ... | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26

88 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#2073367 14-Aug-2018 15:41

Fred99:

msreef:

Not exactly "begging" is it?

Yes it most certainly is, exactly.

(I added a "?" to your statement that wasn't - because it seemed to be begging a reply)

Why thank you.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2073373 14-Aug-2018 15:51

msreef:

Fred99:

msreef:

Not exactly "begging" is it?

Yes it most certainly is, exactly.

(I added a "?" to your statement that wasn't - because it seemed to be begging a reply)

Why thank you.

You're welcome.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2073380 14-Aug-2018 15:58

Fred99 and Rikkitic, isn't your distaste for these two influencing your opinion here?

Begging looks like an overstatement to me. Going on to accuse MikeAqua of defending them really is over the top.

msreef

88 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#2073383 14-Aug-2018 16:06

kryptonjohn:

Fred99 and Rikkitic, isn't your distaste for these two influencing your opinion here?

Begging looks like an overstatement to me. Going on to accuse MikeAqua of defending them really is over the top.

Me, not MikeAqua :)

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2073387 14-Aug-2018 16:09

msreef:

kryptonjohn:

Fred99 and Rikkitic, isn't your distaste for these two influencing your opinion here?

Begging looks like an overstatement to me. Going on to accuse MikeAqua of defending them really is over the top.

Me, not MikeAqua :)

LOL you M's are all the same and I'm getting old!

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2073390 14-Aug-2018 16:11

kryptonjohn:

Fred99 and Rikkitic, isn't your distaste for these two influencing your opinion here?

Begging looks like an overstatement to me. Going on to accuse MikeAqua of defending them really is over the top.

I did not accuse MikeAqua of anything. As far as I know, he has taken no part in this discussion.

The people in question are immoral opportunists seeking easy money by exploiting prejudice and anger. I certainly hope my distaste for them and everyone like them is influencing my opinion because they represent the scum of the earth. They had no business coming here and I can only cheer if it hurt them financially. And yes, as Fred99 clarified, they are begging.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

msreef

88 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#2073393 14-Aug-2018 16:14

kryptonjohn:

msreef:

kryptonjohn:

Fred99 and Rikkitic, isn't your distaste for these two influencing your opinion here?

Begging looks like an overstatement to me. Going on to accuse MikeAqua of defending them really is over the top.

Me, not MikeAqua :)

LOL you M's are all the same and I'm getting old!

We are all the same haha. Censorship is already here - posts are being edited, the ban stick is next for our terrible dissent! :D

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2073399 14-Aug-2018 16:20

kryptonjohn:

Begging looks like an overstatement to me.

Well it's not. Asking for something for free, soliciting donations, whatever - it's literally begging. Using it in the pejorative - perhaps - but that's kind of subjective. I've got a hell of lot more tolerance for example for a limbless beggar on the pavement, holding a tin mug in his teeth asking for a few coins so he can eat - than I have for a couple of privileged white fascists preaching their racial "superiority" when they're also "begging". YMMV

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2073402 14-Aug-2018 16:25

MikeAqua:

Fred99:

"I'd actually like to see the definition of hate speech widened to include sex, sexuality and religion."

Problem there is where do you stop - fat people, stupid people, ugly people - whatever? Half the teenagers on Facebook would be demanding the other half were prosecuted.

The Human Rights Act itself sets out a finite list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. Some/all of those would be a logical and sensible place to stop. These are generally common demographic traits like sex, sexuality, religion, disability etc.

The hate speech section of the HRA is very specific ("words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons ...") and has been used sparingly. I can't see it being used to sort out a twitter spat between groups of teenagers or to crack down on fat-shaming.

When it gets down to condemning "behaviours" is okay or not, it's not so easy IMO to define where to start and stop. At an extreme, there have been plenty of posts made in these forums for example suggesting that we should impose plenty of hate and cruel and unusual punishment - torture even - on certain groups of persons convicted of repugnant crimes Should they be protected - or should they forfeit "human" rights afforded to everyone else on top of punishment. Then you get to people who do even worse things than leaving BMWs in disabled parks...

As for religion, as an atheist I'd want protection too (no not really). I've had plenty of fear and loathing sent my way by assorted lunatics - most of all the good old story about how they'll get some invisible man in sky to punish me with eternal fire and brimstone and burning and misery.

I'd actually prefer if there was no "hate speech" law. I'm reasonably confident that with the rise of fascism, people like Southern and Molyneux and plenty of others are well aware of the limits, smart enough to work around them by dog whistling, and when they get shuffled out of a country like NZ - not because they were at risk of prosecution for "hate speech" - but because they couldn't get support to find a venue because they're genuinely nasty people, they turn it around to argue that was because of limitations on free speech, all NZer's are living under some oppressive regime, and they're "victims" of that. It's BS.

I'd still not let those two into NZ on "character" grounds. Especially as one of the things they came to preach as part of their cultist beliefs, is that "we" need to be more careful about who we let into our country.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2073417 14-Aug-2018 17:08

Rikkitic:

This is precious. Poor crypto-fascists are begging for donations to cover expenses for their unprofitable trip to New Zealand.

Presumably people who disagree with them won't donate and some people who do agree with them, may donate. Seems fair.

Incidentally when I first saw the term crypto-fascist I thought it might have something to do with bitcoin

Mike

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2073425 14-Aug-2018 17:29

Fred99:

When it gets down to condemning "behaviours" is okay or not, it's not so easy IMO to define where to start and stop. At an extreme, there have been plenty of posts made in these forums for example suggesting that we should impose plenty of hate and cruel and unusual punishment - torture even - on certain groups of persons convicted of repugnant crimes Should they be protected - or should they forfeit "human" rights afforded to everyone else on top of punishment. Then you get to people who do even worse things than leaving BMWs in disabled parks...

As for religion, as an atheist I'd want protection too (no not really). I've had plenty of fear and loathing sent my way by assorted lunatics - most of all the good old story about how they'll get some invisible man in sky to punish me with eternal fire and brimstone and burning and misery.

I'd actually prefer if there was no "hate speech" law. I'm reasonably confident that with the rise of fascism, people like Southern and Molyneux and plenty of others are well aware of the limits, smart enough to work around them by dog whistling, and when they get shuffled out of a country like NZ - not because they were at risk of prosecution for "hate speech" - but because they couldn't get support to find a venue because they're genuinely nasty people, they turn it around to argue that was because of limitations on free speech, all NZer's are living under some oppressive regime, and they're "victims" of that. It's BS.

I'm not sure that you understand the hate speech part of the HRA very well. As I said, it's quite specific. For example calling for paedophiles to be executed is not hate speechy. Publically saying that people of ethicity-x should be beaten or killed or denied service is.

Atheists are also protected from discrimination atheism is a ethical belief, which is prohibited grounds of discrimination. I'm nut sure you would be protected form predictions of your eternal damnation. Laws against hate speech aren't a cotton-wool onesie that protect everyone from personal attack or ever being offended. They exist to prevent people inciting mob violence and community contempt, for a particular group. Because historically, that sort of thing has led to pogroms, massacres and other atrocities. The kind that prompted my ancestors on one side to flee their country in the 16th century ...

We still have to tolerate offensive speech from people we don't agree with - like Hone Harawira or Lauren Southern. IMO dog-piling or openly abusing these people is IMO pretty close to the sort of mob-venality we are trying to avoid in the first place.

Based on my family history I would say that part of the HRA legislation is IMO a necessary safeguard. What what you have instead?

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2073476 14-Aug-2018 19:12

MikeAqua:

I'm not sure that you understand the hate speech part of the HRA very well. As I said, it's quite specific. For example calling for paedophiles to be executed is not hate speechy. Publically saying that people of ethicity-x should be beaten or killed or denied service is.

Yes I do - and my example was about why it shouldn't be extended - wasn't claiming that "was" hate speech - but that it could be - if the laws were to be consistent and universally applied.

I'd actually get rid of "hate speech" laws entirely. The disadvantages seem to be outweighing the advantages - one bit of evidence being 21 pages in to this thread, we're still talking about it in relation to those dirty filthy begging fascist privileged white scumbags.