Fascist death threats in New Zealand

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

Forums › Politics › Fascist death threats in New Zealand

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2051803 9-Jul-2018 09:17

Wiggum:

We should not judge others, we need to accept anything another person believes.

Like hell we do. Not when those "beliefs" are promoting, condoning, or excusing intolerant "actions".

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2051806 9-Jul-2018 09:28

Fred99:

Wiggum:

We should not judge others, we need to accept anything another person believes.

Like hell we do. Not when those "beliefs" are promoting, condoning, or excusing intolerant "actions".

Why did you only quote the first bit. That takes it out of context.

Probably not enough tolerance IMO. We should not judge others, we need to accept anything another person believes. Don't need to believe it ourselves. Telling them they wrong is being intolerant.

It sounds like you just being intolerant towards certain beliefs/individuals anyway. Yes there are people like this in this world. Trump is an example, I prefer to practice tolerance towards the guy. Winston Peters is another one, it takes a lot of me. But I will try to tolerate him. Should I lash out at his "beliefs"? I don't need to believe it myself, but I need to accept he has those views, and certainly has the right to have them.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2051811 9-Jul-2018 09:43

Rikkitic:
Geektastic:

However, to turn it on it's head, there are a number of examples in history where free speech has eventually changed regimes.

Likewise, humans are IMV cyclical. What you today regard as speech which should never be free could in 100 or 200 years or whatever be completely the status quo and what you now believe to be acceptable could be deeply unacceptable.

Personally I think people should be able to say whatever they like; nobody has to listen to them, take any notice of them or whatever. If people do respond positively to whatever it is that they are saying, however, surely that indicates that whatever it is (and I am not referring to the original subject of this thread when I say that, merely a generic 'thing' that a person might be espousing) is in fact more of a popular view than was originally thought to be the case.

I don't live 200 years from now. I live today and I don't want this kind of crap in my world. I don't want to have to close my ears to it. I don't want it in my environment at all.

Life is hard, then you die.

There are many things I don't want in this world but which I have to tolerate.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79266 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2051816 9-Jul-2018 09:57

@Fred99:

Wiggum:

Its a different discussion on whether we have free speech in NZ, I don't believe we do anymore.

Dead right we don't. Bob Jones threatened to sue the individual who launched a petition to have him stripped of his knighthood.

Freedom of speech is a guarantee the government won't prevent you from speaking your mind. It doesn't mean that if you do speak your mind there will be no consequences to what you say. Bob Jones is a private individual and in his rights to sue anyone if he disagrees with their opinion.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79266 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2051817 9-Jul-2018 09:58

@Wiggum:

There are people in this world with very different views to our own. Its how the world works. It's not all about you, and what you want. Deal with it.

When their view promotes hate between people then it's about everyone. Promoting tension based on a racial profiling is not what we want for us now or in the future.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2051821 9-Jul-2018 10:06

Wiggum:

Fred99:

Wiggum:

We should not judge others, we need to accept anything another person believes.

Like hell we do. Not when those "beliefs" are promoting, condoning, or excusing intolerant "actions".

Why did you only quote the first bit. That takes it out of context.

Probably not enough tolerance IMO. We should not judge others, we need to accept anything another person believes. Don't need to believe it ourselves. Telling them they wrong is being intolerant.

It sounds like you just being intolerant towards certain beliefs/individuals anyway. Yes there are people like this in this world. Trump is an example, I prefer to practice tolerance towards the guy. Winston Peters is another one, it takes a lot of me. But I will try to tolerate him. Should I lash out at his "beliefs"? I don't need to believe it myself, but I need to accept he has those views, and certainly has the right to have them.

I thought you'd gone.

I'm not sure how "We should not judge others, we need to accept anything another person believes" could be affected by context, it's a very black and white statement.

So I assume you'd also tolerate and *not judge* rhetoric from fascists, jihadists, stalinists, people promoting peadophilia, consensual cannabilism, whatever - need I go on?

I'm assuming that you've interpreted the biblical "Judge not, that ye be not judged" etc as a command (or warning) to not judge ever - rather than the way I'd tend to interpret it, as a warning that you'll be judged by the same standard - so in other words and in plain english - "don't be an evil ar$ehole".

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2051827 9-Jul-2018 10:33

freitasm:

@Fred99:

Wiggum:

Its a different discussion on whether we have free speech in NZ, I don't believe we do anymore.

Dead right we don't. Bob Jones threatened to sue the individual who launched a petition to have him stripped of his knighthood.

Freedom of speech is a guarantee the government won't prevent you from speaking your mind. It doesn't mean that if you do speak your mind there will be no consequences to what you say. Bob Jones is a private individual and in his rights to sue anyone if he disagrees with their opinion.

Indeed. And the government (which is "us") has a right to prosecute hate speech.

My point about Bob Jones is that he threatened to sue the person who merely launched a petition that upset him. He very clearly upset them first. His column may have been "funny" - but it was absolutely *trolling. He did get a rap on the knuckles from the HRC, the NBR withdrew the article. I don't know the reason why Jones never lodged defamation papers he claimed to have prepared . Maybe because he became self-aware and realised that could be seen to be hypocritical, or perhaps on the advice of a lawyer who may have suggested that he had no case, or perhaps he was just trolling and never intended to lodge papers - which seems to be something he's infamous for. Perhaps he just got bored. The "petition" has no legal standing / obliges nobody to do anything - it's only words.

*Trolling as defined by "taking pleasure in fishing for bites for their own amusement" - not "trolling" as more recently defined WRT to internet "trolls" on twitter etc.

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.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2051828 9-Jul-2018 10:34

Fred99:

So I assume you'd also tolerate and *not judge* rhetoric from fascists, jihadists, stalinists, people promoting peadophilia, consensual cannabilism, whatever - need I go on?

I think you stretching this one Fred. Being anti-immigrant, ant-refugee or anti-feminist are very different things. Those are views anybody is perfectly entitled to in a free and fair democracy. This is not a discussion about that barbarism you mention.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2051833 9-Jul-2018 10:43

Wiggum:

Fred99:

So I assume you'd also tolerate and *not judge* rhetoric from fascists, jihadists, stalinists, people promoting peadophilia, consensual cannabilism, whatever - need I go on?

I think you stretching this one Fred. Being anti-immigrant, ant-refugee or anti-feminist are very different things. Those are views anybody is perfectly entitled to in a free and fair democracy. This is not a discussion about that barbarism you mention.

You're actually wrong. WRT expressing anti-immigrant or anti-refugee views it's unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons".

Feminism is an ideology not an individual - so go for your life if you want to argue against it.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2051840 9-Jul-2018 10:55

Fred99:

Wiggum:

Fred99:

So I assume you'd also tolerate and *not judge* rhetoric from fascists, jihadists, stalinists, people promoting peadophilia, consensual cannabilism, whatever - need I go on?

I think you stretching this one Fred. Being anti-immigrant, ant-refugee or anti-feminist are very different things. Those are views anybody is perfectly entitled to in a free and fair democracy. This is not a discussion about that barbarism you mention.

You're actually wrong. WRT expressing anti-immigrant or anti-refugee views it's unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons".

Feminism is an ideology not an individual - so go for your life if you want to argue against it.

Perhaps then you should practice what you preach and watch what you say against the Christian community and/or other religion organizations. I have seen plenty of posts on the subject from you insulting these people.

Being anti-something does not mean you a hater. Stop painting it all with the same brush.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2051861 9-Jul-2018 11:17

I would remind everyone that this thread is not about people expressing unpalatable views. It is about anonymous men with very tiny dicks threatening to rape and murder someone because of an opinion she stated on Twitter. There can be absolutely no tolerance whatsoever for the cowardly cretins who engage in this sort of practice.

Of course I am making an assumption here. These days women are no longer exempt from the kinds of behaviours that used to be thought of as exclusively male. It is certainly not impossible that a female person was behind the rape threat, but I don't think so. This is definitely small dick behaviour.

As far as free speech goes, no society in the world allows truly free speech. What matters is that our society allows the kind of free speech that is important to healthy debate. Tolerance for extremists who want to abuse free speech privilege to spew their poison to the easily influenced should be limited at best. I have no problem at all with sending Barbie packing. She has no business coming here in the first place.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79266 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2051862 9-Jul-2018 11:18

Well said.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2051875 9-Jul-2018 11:36

Wiggum:

Fred99:

Wiggum:

Fred99:

So I assume you'd also tolerate and *not judge* rhetoric from fascists, jihadists, stalinists, people promoting peadophilia, consensual cannabilism, whatever - need I go on?

I think you stretching this one Fred. Being anti-immigrant, ant-refugee or anti-feminist are very different things. Those are views anybody is perfectly entitled to in a free and fair democracy. This is not a discussion about that barbarism you mention.

You're actually wrong. WRT expressing anti-immigrant or anti-refugee views it's unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons".

Feminism is an ideology not an individual - so go for your life if you want to argue against it.

Perhaps then you should practice what you preach and watch what you say against the Christian community and/or other religion organizations. I have seen plenty of posts on the subject from you insulting these people.

Being anti-something does not mean you a hater. Stop painting it all with the same brush.

Theism is (like feminism) also an ideology - not an individual - and it's absolutely fine to argue against intolerance and hypocrisy by the church. Jesus did. Despite being an atheist, I'm confident he'd have my back on this.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2051900 9-Jul-2018 11:46

Rikkitic:

I would remind everyone that this thread is not about people expressing unpalatable views. It is about anonymous men with very tiny dicks threatening to rape and murder someone because of an opinion she stated on Twitter. There can be absolutely no tolerance whatsoever for the cowardly cretins who engage in this sort of practice.

Of course I am making an assumption here. These days women are no longer exempt from the kinds of behaviours that used to be thought of as exclusively male. It is certainly not impossible that a female person was behind the rape threat, but I don't think so. This is definitely small dick behaviour.

As far as free speech goes, no society in the world allows truly free speech. What matters is that our society allows the kind of free speech that is important to healthy debate. Tolerance for extremists who want to abuse free speech privilege to spew their poison to the easily influenced should be limited at best. I have no problem at all with sending Barbie packing. She has no business coming here in the first place.

Take a well earned bow and feel free to drop the mic

MikeAqua

7779 posts

Uber Geek

#2051914 9-Jul-2018 12:23

I think we have the balance about right in NZ.

I think our hate speech laws are a reasonable limitation on absolute free-speech, as are laws about not using obscene language in public. Our censorship laws are reasonable (if a little ineffective in the internet age).

Beyond those there are few practical fetters on our free speech.

There is a lot of shrill overreaction to trivial things, but outrage is a global phenomenon now.

Mike

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7