UK Politics Thread 18-inch Mark VI: Witty Title Forthcoming

[Souseiseki]

You kinda have to demonise a minority group and actively portray them as a threat in order for that to happen. And as far as I know I've never heard of any hate crimes against the wealthy inspired by sensible revelations of tax evasions. Was there a 47% spike in hate crimes against rich people in the UK after the Panama Papers were released? No, so its a false equivalency.

It's difficult to register the number of spikes when the crime probably goes unrecorded.
If someone spat in the burgers of every muslim they served, would you consider that a hate crime?

Now consider the rich.
Maybe we should ban the left wing, right?

this is the kind of thing that really pisses me off

someone could write a fucking 10,000 word essay describing exactly what they did, how they got there and what role everyone played it and people (read: you) will still go "yeah but actually..." (see: all the suicide notes that explicitly blame the government that get turned into "well, really, if you think about it, the government isn't to blame at all...")

[Ostroeuropa]

It's difficult to register the number of spikes when the crime probably goes unrecorded.
If someone spat in the burgers of every muslim they served, would you consider that a hate crime?

Now consider the rich.
Maybe we should ban the left wing, right?

I never advocated banning the right wing in its entirety. I'm just saying extreme cases of advocating for the discrimination of an entire vulnerable, minority group, or promoting harmful stereotypes that a group of people is homogenously dangerously, is something which should be banned, and to be fair most developed nations already have hate speech laws so I'm not really proposing anything new, just saying we should retain what we already have.

I'm opposed because they are not applied evenly, only in circumstances the progressive left think punches up.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's difficult to register the number of spikes when the crime probably goes unrecorded.
If someone spat in the burgers of every muslim they served, would you consider that a hate crime?

Now consider the rich.
Maybe we should ban the left wing, right?

I never advocated banning the right wing in its entirety. I'm just saying extreme cases of advocating for the discrimination of an entire vulnerable, minority group, or promoting harmful stereotypes that a group of people is homogenously dangerously, is something which should be banned, and to be fair most developed nations already have hate speech laws so I'm not really proposing anything new, just saying we should retain what we already have.

Or at least, appoint someone to determine whether what they say will lead to anti-rich hatecrimes. I'm sure you're happy being censored by those looking out for the rich.

This is the problem, you're using "But harm!" as a reason to justify censorship, then doubling down and refusing to allow other perspectives on harm except a left wing one. You're dodging between universalist principles and progressive ones. It's a common tactic from the new left.

Why shouldn't we censor left wing speech if it causes harm?

And this is MAINSTREAM at this point among the left, this absurd, "Only we are an acceptable way to view the world" censorship campaign. And you wonder why people are ditching the left wing.

"Our correlations are causations because our ideology says so." etc.

[Souseiseki]

I never advocated banning the right wing in its entirety. I'm just saying extreme cases of advocating for the discrimination of an entire vulnerable, minority group, or promoting harmful stereotypes that a group of people is homogenously dangerously, is something which should be banned, and to be fair most developed nations already have hate speech laws so I'm not really proposing anything new, just saying we should retain what we already have.

I'm opposed because they are not applied evenly, only in circumstances the progressive left think punches up.

the simple response is that if you think the rich are treated the same way as say people on benefits or recent migrants are by the government and media you are fucking wrong. the gulf is so massive it's hard to even know where to begin. they're not even remotely equal, so why are you even trying to pretend they are? yeah we'll apply the exact same treatment to the thing that is happening as we do to the thing that is not happening.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm opposed because they are not applied evenly, only in circumstances the progressive left think punches up.

the simple response is that if you think the rich are treated the same way as say people on benefits or recent migrants are by the government and media you are fucking wrong. the gulf is so massive it's hard to even know where to begin. they're not even remotely equal, so why the fuck are you even trying to pretend they are? yeah we'll apply the exact same treatment to the thing that is happening as we do to the thing that is not happening.

How about males and whites then? Or christians v muslims, etc.

[Divitaen]

I never advocated banning the right wing in its entirety. I'm just saying extreme cases of advocating for the discrimination of an entire vulnerable, minority group, or promoting harmful stereotypes that a group of people is homogenously dangerously, is something which should be banned, and to be fair most developed nations already have hate speech laws so I'm not really proposing anything new, just saying we should retain what we already have.

I'm opposed because they are not applied evenly, only in circumstances the progressive left think punches up.

I'm not a lawyer (law student though but that doesn't count), so I don't claim this to be a legal point of view, but I'm pretty sure a black person chanting that black people should rally and lynch white people would probably be thrown in jail for hate speech too.

[Great Nepal]

What if those people with racist beliefs are expressing their opinions in a manner that could clearly inspire others to commit a violent hate crime, even if the adherent himself doesn't seek to commit such crimes? Isn't that equally dangerous and worthy of censure?

Adults are expected to have sufficient mental capacity to not blindly follow rhetoric of third party and commit violence; unless the person is preaching to deliberately, and knowingly preaching to venerable group (children, mentally ill etc) they can not be held responsible for actions of third party.

[Divitaen]

I never advocated banning the right wing in its entirety. I'm just saying extreme cases of advocating for the discrimination of an entire vulnerable, minority group, or promoting harmful stereotypes that a group of people is homogenously dangerously, is something which should be banned, and to be fair most developed nations already have hate speech laws so I'm not really proposing anything new, just saying we should retain what we already have.

Or at least, appoint someone to determine whether what they say will lead to anti-rich hatecrimes. I'm sure you're happy being censored by those looking out for the rich.

This is the problem, you're using "But harm!" as a reason to justify censorship, then doubling down and refusing to allow other perspectives on harm except a left wing one. You're dodging between universalist principles and progressive ones. It's a common tactic from the new left.

Why shouldn't we censor left wing speech if it causes harm?

And this is MAINSTREAM at this point among the left, this absurd, "Only we are an acceptable way to view the world" censorship campaign. And you wonder why people are ditching the left wing.

"Our correlations are causations because our ideology says so." etc.

You're really going down a huge logical extension I'm not really sure where to start. I think 99% of right-wing views espoused don't fall under hate speech laws at all. Advocating for free enterprise, for one. Advocating for lower taxes, or wanting less regulations on businesses, or wanting to ban recreational drugs, like I honestly don't know any leftist who wants to ban advocating any of these clearly right-wing, conservative points of view. I don't understand how you're portraying it as a "hate speech laws allow me to lock up every single right-wing person, haha!"

[Divitaen]

What if those people with racist beliefs are expressing their opinions in a manner that could clearly inspire others to commit a violent hate crime, even if the adherent himself doesn't seek to commit such crimes? Isn't that equally dangerous and worthy of censure?

Adults are expected to have sufficient mental capacity to not blindly follow rhetoric of third party and commit violence; unless the person is preaching to deliberately, and knowingly preaching to venerable group (children, mentally ill etc) they can not be held responsible for actions of third party.

Obviously they aren't legally responsible for the actual crime. No one is arguing these hate speech speakers should be executed for murder because someone else committed murder when inspired by them. I'm just saying they should be tried for incitement.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm opposed because they are not applied evenly, only in circumstances the progressive left think punches up.

I'm not a lawyer (law student though but that doesn't count), so I don't claim this to be a legal point of view, but I'm pretty sure a black person chanting that black people should rally and lynch white people would probably be thrown in jail for hate speech too.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/killallmen?src=hash&lang=en
Etc.

[Souseiseki]

the simple response is that if you think the rich are treated the same way as say people on benefits or recent migrants are by the government and media you are fucking wrong. the gulf is so massive it's hard to even know where to begin. they're not even remotely equal, so why the fuck are you even trying to pretend they are? yeah we'll apply the exact same treatment to the thing that is happening as we do to the thing that is not happening.

How about males and whites then? Or christians v muslims, etc.

the answer is the same. yes, if the papers were running constant stories shitting over christians, TV shows were created with the explicit intention of demonizing christians and there was a big vote in which christians were a central issue after which attacks on christians spiked by 50% and then dealing with christinas became an increasing part of government policy and rhetoric we would have a problem. but we don't have a problem, because none of that actually happened.

[Great Nepal]

Adults are expected to have sufficient mental capacity to not blindly follow rhetoric of third party and commit violence; unless the person is preaching to deliberately, and knowingly preaching to venerable group (children, mentally ill etc) they can not be held responsible for actions of third party.

Obviously they aren't legally responsible for the actual crime. No one is arguing these hate speech speakers should be executed for murder because someone else committed murder when inspired by them. I'm just saying they should be tried for incitement.

Why? There was no harm caused by the speech itself (assuming of course speech is made in a way that doesn't cause the group distress for example in private setting).

[Ostroeuropa]

How about males and whites then? Or christians v muslims, etc.

the answer is the same. yes, if the papers were running constant stories shitting over christians, TV shows were created with the explicit intention of demonizing christians and there was a big vote in which christians were a central issue after which attacks on christians spiked by 50% and then dealing with christinas became an increasing part of government policy and rhetoric we would have a problem. but we don't have a problem, because none of that actually happened.

Which tv shows are you talking about?

[Philjia]

I'm not a lawyer (law student though but that doesn't count), so I don't claim this to be a legal point of view, but I'm pretty sure a black person chanting that black people should rally and lynch white people would probably be thrown in jail for hate speech too.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/killallmen?src=hash&lang=en
Etc.

Literally none of the tweets there are in any way endorsing the hashtag. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.

[Souseiseki]

the answer is the same. yes, if the papers were running constant stories shitting over christians, TV shows were created with the explicit intention of demonizing christians and there was a big vote in which christians were a central issue after which attacks on christians spiked by 50% and then dealing with christinas became an increasing part of government policy and rhetoric we would have a problem. but we don't have a problem, because none of that actually happened.

Which tv shows are you talking about?

benefits street, benefits britain: life on the dole, the great british benefits handout, the big benefits handout, on benefits, the saga of octomom, etc.

(in case it's not clear i consider the rising hate crimes against immigrants (or people that look like immigrants, i wonder how they judge that?) and the previous rising hate crimes against the disabled to be the same root cause, so things will blend together a bit, into one big pile of shit)

[Ostroeuropa]

Which tv shows are you talking about?

benefits street, benefits britain: life on the dole, the great british benefits handout, the big benefits handout, on benefits, the saga of octomom, etc.

(in case it's not clear i consider the rising hate crimes against immigrants (or people that look like immigrants, i wonder how they judge that?) and the previous rising hate crimes against the disabled to be the same root cause, so things will blend together a bit, into one big pile of shit)

The mail's point here is precisely right.
If you're born in what amounts to a colony of the middle east, you're not really British. You're just born on the British Isles.

Second gen immigrants raised in ghettos shouldn't be counted as British, because inevitably, they act nothing like it except in some fringe cases.

If the UK acquired 10 miles of land in China, and populated it fully with British people who didn't interact with the Chinese except to trade, would they be chinese?

[Divitaen]

I'm not a lawyer (law student though but that doesn't count), so I don't claim this to be a legal point of view, but I'm pretty sure a black person chanting that black people should rally and lynch white people would probably be thrown in jail for hate speech too.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/killallmen?src=hash&lang=en
Etc.

Have you heard any liberal say that killing all men is an acceptable view that doesn't amount to hate speech? Because I'm pretty sure no liberal would argue that.

[Divitaen]

Obviously they aren't legally responsible for the actual crime. No one is arguing these hate speech speakers should be executed for murder because someone else committed murder when inspired by them. I'm just saying they should be tried for incitement.

Why? There was no harm caused by the speech itself (assuming of course speech is made in a way that doesn't cause the group distress for example in private setting).

Actually, there is, because when you're a vulnerable minority who is always under the threat of harassment and intimidating violence from others having a prominent politician or activist shout racist slurs or demonise your community is not exactly what you need to hear to feel psychologically safe. And hate speech actually has proven scientific and psychological health harms.

[Ostroeuropa]

https://twitter.com/hashtag/killallmen?src=hash&lang=en
Etc.

Have you heard any liberal say that killing all men is an acceptable view that doesn't amount to hate speech? Because I'm pretty sure no liberal would argue that.

If you ignore it, it's not much better, especially having changed the playing field.

If I were to only prosecute assaults from minorities against whites, then "I never said you should assault minorities, it's unacceptable." before going right back to ignoring the Klan tying up a noose outside, that isn't exactly a defense.

It goes beyond mere indifference to the crime, because it IS prosecuted when it's against some demographics, just not others.

This isn't much different than stop and frisk. Why do you support the policy which disproportionately targets whites and males?

[Divitaen]

Have you heard any liberal say that killing all men is an acceptable view that doesn't amount to hate speech? Because I'm pretty sure no liberal would argue that.

If you ignore it, it's not much better, especially having changed the playing field.

If I were to only prosecute assaults from minorities against whites, then "I never said you should assault minorities, it's unacceptable." before going right back to ignoring the Klan tying up a noose outside, that isn't exactly a defense.

It goes beyond mere indifference to the crime, because it IS prosecuted when it's against some demographics, just not others.

This isn't much different than stop and frisk. Why do you support the policy which disproportionately targets whites and males?

Because scale of harm has to be taken into account. One random person on Twitter isn't going to attract a prosecutor's attention. But a prominent religious leader who has a huge scale of public influence calling all gay people pedophiles actually does have influence and the potential to do harm. Its a statistical game really, hate speech often goes one way much more often than it does the other, making it far more likely to catch a prosecutor's attention. Its not prosecutors who are actively discriminating or turning a blind eye to certain hate crimes over others.

[Souseiseki]

benefits street, benefits britain: life on the dole, the great british benefits handout, the big benefits handout, on benefits, the saga of octomom, etc.

(in case it's not clear i consider the rising hate crimes against immigrants (or people that look like immigrants, i wonder how they judge that?) and the previous rising hate crimes against the disabled to be the same root cause, so things will blend together a bit, into one big pile of shit)

The mail's point here is precisely right.
If you're born in what amounts to a colony of the middle east, you're not really British. You're just born on the British Isles.

Second gen immigrants raised in ghettos shouldn't be counted as British, because inevitably, they act nothing like it except in some fringe cases.

If the UK acquired 10 miles of land in China, and populated it fully with British people who didn't interact with the Chinese except to trade, would they be chinese?

notice how they were just complaining about the numbers and how they were counted. do you honestly think the people writing headlines like "one in nine people living in the UK born overseas!" and complaining about how second and third generation immigrants being labelled as british not as immigrants actually meant "one in nine people living in the UK born overseas! ...but i'm perfectly ok with that. nothing wrong with being born overseas of the children of immigrants. my problem is actually with a very select small number of immigrants."

https://twitter.com/hashtag/killallmen?src=hash&lang=en
Etc.

Have you heard any liberal say that killing all men is an acceptable view that doesn't amount to hate speech? Because I'm pretty sure no liberal would argue that.

i know one lib dem that said this and she got in trouble

that's my #killallmen story

[Ostroeuropa]

If you ignore it, it's not much better, especially having changed the playing field.

If I were to only prosecute assaults from minorities against whites, then "I never said you should assault minorities, it's unacceptable." before going right back to ignoring the Klan tying up a noose outside, that isn't exactly a defense.

It goes beyond mere indifference to the crime, because it IS prosecuted when it's against some demographics, just not others.

This isn't much different than stop and frisk. Why do you support the policy which disproportionately targets whites and males?

Because scale of harm has to be taken into account. One random person on Twitter isn't going to attract a prosecutor's attention. But a prominent religious leader who has a huge scale of public influence calling all gay people pedophiles actually does have influence and the potential to do harm. Its a statistical game really, hate speech often goes one way much more often than it does the other, making it far more likely to catch a prosecutor's attention. Its not prosecutors who are actively discriminating or turning a blind eye to certain hate crimes over others.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... s-scotland

They do attract their attention, when it's committed against certain demographics. So how do you explain the discrepancy?

[Souseiseki]

This isn't much different than stop and frisk. Why do you support the policy which disproportionately targets whites and males?

since when did stop and frisk disproportionately target whites

this is the kind of thing that legit makes me feel like we're living in completely different worlds

[Divitaen]

Because scale of harm has to be taken into account. One random person on Twitter isn't going to attract a prosecutor's attention. But a prominent religious leader who has a huge scale of public influence calling all gay people pedophiles actually does have influence and the potential to do harm. Its a statistical game really, hate speech often goes one way much more often than it does the other, making it far more likely to catch a prosecutor's attention. Its not prosecutors who are actively discriminating or turning a blind eye to certain hate crimes over others.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... s-scotland

They do attract their attention, when it's committed against certain demographics.

Again, its a statistical game. Its just objectively true that white people Tweeting or posting about refugees and immigrants is just far more likely and happens in greater frequency that a refugee going onto a computer and tweeting that all Brits should be deported. So obviously, if something happens more often, then its more likely to catch prosecutorial attention. Its just a numbers game, I don't really see evidence of active discrimination.

[Ostroeuropa]

This isn't much different than stop and frisk. Why do you support the policy which disproportionately targets whites and males?

since when did stop and frisk disproportionately target whites

this is the kind of thing that legit makes me feel like we're living in completely different worlds

Stop and frisk disproportionately targets minorities, and is often called a racist policy because of this.
Progressive censorship campaigns disproportionately target whites and males. Therefore?