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 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2074143 15-Aug-2018 18:36

No, you are not forced to offer anything. If you don't like the law you can shut down and do something else.

The bigger issue is that neither you nor I nor Phil nor Jan get to be the arbiter of what is acceptable. And if any individual was to get this power, then the *inevitable* outcome is that next thing, people this individual doesn't like for other reasons will be suppressed.

That's why we have laws and the laws are doing fine, as long as people like Phil and Jan don't abuse their positions.

I'm done here. Sick of repeating myself.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2074160 15-Aug-2018 19:41

kryptonjohn:

No, you are not forced to offer anything. If you don't like the law you can shut down and do something else.

The bigger issue is that neither you nor I nor Phil nor Jan get to be the arbiter of what is acceptable. And if any individual was to get this power, then the *inevitable* outcome is that next thing, people this individual doesn't like for other reasons will be suppressed.

That's why we have laws and the laws are doing fine, as long as people like Phil and Jan don't abuse their positions.

I'm done here. Sick of repeating myself.

You're done here - simply because you can't deal rationally with it - to provide a reasonable answer to a paradox you can't see.

You'd quite happily suppress my rights to use my property how I choose, if I chose to deny access to something I owned, to people who wanted to use it to openly argue for legislative suppression of fundamental human rights of others to not be discriminated against, based on the colour they were born or whatever.

You keep repeating "it's simple". It isn't - it's ideological delusion to say that it ever could have been.

It absolutely fits within the definition of a "wicked problem" I'd posted about earlier.

Thus "simple solutions" tend to be very subjective - as you demonstrate.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2074217 15-Aug-2018 21:36

The above exchange is highly amusing. The usual unthinking, simple-minded useful idiot (look up a history book if one doesn't understand the context in which that term was used by Lenin before anyone is tempted to say "That's so impolite!") who defends the boorish and horrible on the basis of some purported principle that he doesn't understand versus people who actually can see the root of the problem. Southern and Molyneux isn't Galileo and Phil Goff or the Massey V-C isn't the Catholic church. Even if you disagree with the latter's stance, they are not persecuting Southern or Molyneux.

In addition, there's no reasonable possibility that scientific racism is correct; just like how no reasonable, non-retarded individual with a smidgeon of awareness of history can conclude that Hitler was merely some silly misguided SJW (or sentiments of that sort which Southern proclaimed). The typical Millian utilitarian defences of freedom of speech (e.g. the need to stay humble in the face of ever developing knowledge or the utility of allowing obnoxious views to be aired, so that they can be adequately debunked) really don't actually offer a great deal of support for the stances of people like Kryptonjohn in light of how abundantly false those ogres' views are. Cry as they might, at the end of the day, in the context of the private venue owner who denied the right for those two idiots to host their event, there can easily be an argument that the venue owner was making the decision on the basis of practical, commercial reality (i.e. the pain of being associated with the ogres outweighed any monetary gain from hosting them), which is not a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Act. A similar argument may be open to entities subject to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and also susceptible to judicial review as well -- remember, the so called "free speech coalition" (mostly disaffected and conservative idiots who are disappointed that we can't return to the last century)'s lawsuit against the AC was abandoned and there were no definitive findings.

Much more importantly, the usual (typically right wing and conservative) blind defences of allowing people like Southern and Molyneux to spew at nearly all costs often assume a slippery slope argument. This is a very good illustration of the falsity of many slippery slope arguments. In the context of this debate, whatever one thinks of people like Phil Goff et al, you simply have to be spectacularly unintelligent to conclude that there's some widespread, ever-occurring and increasingly threatening force at work to deny opportunity to the truly obnoxious to spread their fumes far and wide. The very fact that Southern and Molyneux continue to be able to make hay out of their recent experiences tells you all there is to know.

It's time for some to do more thinking and less typing.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79014 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2074236 15-Aug-2018 22:41

Removed one post that was just trolling.

My technology disclosure

msreef

88 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#2074237 15-Aug-2018 22:43

freitasm:

Removed one post that was just trolling.

Was not trolling at all, just a image I thought was funny. Have noted that was far too extreme for this forum and will not post again.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79014 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2074239 15-Aug-2018 22:45

msreef:

freitasm:

Removed one post that was just trolling.

Was not trolling at all, just a image I thought was funny. Have noted that was far too extreme for this forum and will not post again.

It was not extreme but it was trolling.

My technology disclosure

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18565 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2074240 15-Aug-2018 22:59

kryptonjohn:

The bigger issue is that neither you nor I nor Phil nor Jan get to be the arbiter of what is acceptable. And if any individual was to get this power, then the *inevitable* outcome is that next thing, people this individual doesn't like for other reasons will be suppressed.

I wish people would quit using this fake logic to create a sense of panic. No-one has this power and no-one is about to get it. Everyone is free to seek out all the perverted crap they like.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2074245 15-Aug-2018 23:52

The point is that fake logic is all that people who shamelessly peddle crappy slippery slope arguments can offer. The fundamental question is this: in a world so full of problems and pressing issues that poses the existential crisis of whether our children or grandchildren might (as some of the unluckiest generations ever) inherit a world that is objectively far, far worse than what most people 20 years+ old were bequeathed, why do some people feel a need to waste so much energy defending two bags of living filth who have barely endured any evidenced and objectively discernable detriment? Remember, for all of Molyneux crying that he lost out on lots of his lovely fans paying to see the walking urinal duo act, in Australia (for example) the paying audience was tiny.

I find it utterly hilarious that the two most rabid and supposed points-of-principle defenders of Molyneux and Southern will never devote post after post to bemoan the actual plight of other unpopular but socially-acceptable-to-bag characters (e.g. convicted criminals) being objectively mistreated by the state, e.g. following objective court determinations that a person's rights were infringed. In fact, one of these two individuals has no qualm whatsoever showing that he couldn't less about doing illegal and utterly immoral things to people that he considers acceptable to hate.

In other words, often the people crying the loudest about the horrible left randomly choosing whose cause they back are actually the ones most guilty of this kind of selective morality. The gag is laughable; the underlying paucity of character and backbone is worse than pathetic.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2074284 16-Aug-2018 08:18

Up until now this discussion has been conducted respectfully but now it has descended to the level of ad-hominem and spittle laden ranting. I'm out. After all, commentators from the spectrum of Stephen Franks to Chris Trotter have all calmly expressed what needed to be said already.

MikeAqua

7769 posts

Uber Geek

#2074313 16-Aug-2018 09:23

Fred99:

It has you openly arguing - that if I owned a venue that I hired out, then I should be forced to hire it out to fascists - or face prosecution for discrimination if I rejected them because they were fascists.

Now that's crazy.

There potentially is an issue there. One of the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the HRA is: "political opinion, which includes the lack of a particular political opinion or any political opinion".

Consequently, if fascism can reasonably be called a political opinion, then (ironically) refusal of venue hire to someone for being a fascist may violate the HRA.

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2074353 16-Aug-2018 10:17

kryptonjohn:

Up until now this discussion has been conducted respectfully but now it has descended to the level of ad-hominem and spittle laden ranting. I'm out. After all, commentators from the spectrum of Stephen Franks to Chris Trotter have all calmly expressed what needed to be said already.

In your opinion. But ideological positions aren't laws.

There are laws (and plenty of them) already limiting absolute "rights to free speech", these aren't set in concrete forever - and they're clearly subject to interpretation.

Even the effectiveness of some laws (ie "hate speech") could be questioned using the same data, does a low number of prosecutions mean that the laws are working very effectively as a deterrent, or that the laws are toothless? (Genuine question - I don't have the answer)

If you said stuff about me that was untrue and was intended to cause me harm, and made those views public, then I'd be able to sue you for defamation.

If you said stuff about my race, that was untrue and was intended to cause harm to an entire group of people, then that's okay - so long as it's not "threatening, abusive, or insulting". Explain to me how saying for example that black people are deterministically/genetically intellectually inferior to white people (untrue) isn't "threatening, abusive, or insulting". If it was determined that this was an untrue, threatening, abusive and insulting view being expressed, then how is prosecution under that law any more "shutting down of free speech", than for example Bob Jones launching defamation / libel proceedings against someone who accused Jones of "hate speech"?

OTOH, if there were qualified experts having a debate about the influence of race on IQ- rather than an abject clueless and unqualified moron like Molyneaux - would that be okay?

Bob Jones' column was removed from the NBR due to "inappropriate content". Should he also be able to sue the NBR for that under Section 21 of the HRA 1993 for discriminating against him for his political views? If not - then why are some people so upset when a venue owner concerned about "inappropriate content" won't host a pair a fascists?

Is personal opinion and "bias" on individual examples - as well as ideological "position" - motivating claims either way about threats to "free speech rights"?

You're apparently in belief we're living in a black and white world where ideological absolutes are enshrined - and IMO they are not.

MikeAqua

7769 posts

Uber Geek

#2074358 16-Aug-2018 10:26

Fred99:

Bob Jones' column was removed from the NBR due to "inappropriate content". Should he also be able to sue the NBR for that under Section 21 of the HRA 1993 for discriminating against him for his political views? If not - then why are some people so upset when a venue owner concerned about "inappropriate content" won't host a pair a fascists?

Because refusing to publish something isn't discrimination.

As to the second part, would you be bothered by someone refusing to host two speaker that espoused political view that you agreed with?

I don't agree with the alt-right, but the censorship did bother me. It would have bothered me if the speakers were from National, Labour ACT, Green or NORML.

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2074395 16-Aug-2018 11:01

MikeAqua:

Fred99:

Bob Jones' column was removed from the NBR due to "inappropriate content". Should he also be able to sue the NBR for that under Section 21 of the HRA 1993 for discriminating against him for his political views? If not - then why are some people so upset when a venue owner concerned about "inappropriate content" won't host a pair a fascists?

Because refusing to publish something isn't discrimination.

As to the second part, would you be bothered by someone refusing to host two speaker that espoused political view that you agreed with?

I don't agree with the alt-right, but the censorship did bother me. It would have bothered me if the speakers were from National, Labour ACT, Green or NORML.

Are you sure about that? I can't find anything in the HRA to suggest that if you did refuse to publish something because of some reason prohibited by the HRA, you'd be exempt from those laws. In practice though, "inappropriate content" is broad enough - and you'd find plenty of other reason to refuse to publish a load of twaddle anyway.

As to the second part, I'd wager I'd be denied access to hire a church hall to preach on the God delusion and virtues of atheism and the need to ensure a more secular society (yes - in that case I know the church is exempt/allowed to discriminate against me), nor hold a seminar at the casino espousing political views on the evils of booze and gambling and, nor the local school hall to deliver a lecture arguing for abolition of teacher unions. Would any of that bother me? No - probably not.
It would bother me though if I wasn't allowed to express those views on line, on a soapbox in the town square, or in a venue that would allow me access. But that didn't happen to Molyneux & Southern - did it?

(yes I know a few people would have liked to see them gagged/censored completely - but that was an extreme minority view)

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18565 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2074396 16-Aug-2018 11:03

This is a discussion that can go around in circles forever. I don’t think any legalistic definition can cover all the possible permutations. The nature of the beast is such that it can’t be contained that way. That is why debates like this end in a tangled mess.

I believe in common sense. That is also something that is impossible to pin down in legal terms. But it is real, and there is far too little of it in today’s world. Common sense tells me that alt-right crypto-fascists have nothing positive to contribute to our society and there is no need to go out of our way to accommodate them. I don’t think their views should be censored as such, but we also don’t have to help them find public podia for spreading those views. Enabling that ‘legitimises’ such ideas and lends them a veneer of credibility that is not warranted under any circumstances.

People ask who controls what is allowed to be said. I think the public does. I believe most people reject such views. What happened in Auckland proves that very point. Most people did not want those people to appear. A few did. A few always will. But majority public opinion just wanted them to go away. I think when anything like this comes up, public opinion will provide an answer. It will filter down through the layers of society like a pinball and pop out at the bottom. It doesn’t have to be a complicated process.

In the same way that public opinion came up with a sensible response to the Canadian stirrers, it also delivered a resounding verdict on the Don Brash debacle. The decision to prevent him from speaking at Massey was universally denounced as silly and excessive, which it was. Anyone in a position to make a similar decision in the future will think long and hard before making the same mistake again. Common sense wins. Think of it as the jury system.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

gehenna

8434 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2074412 16-Aug-2018 11:22

Jesus.

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