Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Plenty of white Brits do not share these views. " 110k turnout from 70 million population. Largely represented by over fed salad dodgers, who are they going to fight. 99% wouldn’t pass an infantry bft | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Plenty of white Brits do not share these views. 110k turnout from 70 million population. Largely represented by over fed salad dodgers, who are they going to fight. 99% wouldn’t pass an infantry bft " No, they are ‘patriots’ mate. ‘Patriots’ who assault the police & have little respect for law enforcement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Plenty of white Brits do not share these views. 110k turnout from 70 million population. Largely represented by over fed salad dodgers, who are they going to fight. 99% wouldn’t pass an infantry bft No, they are ‘patriots’ mate. ‘Patriots’ who assault the police & have little respect for law enforcement." Send them to Lympstone, they will be begging for the first train home. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" March seemed to get a decent turnout and was “mostly peaceful” as the media likes to say. Certainly far less violence than at the average Notting Hill Carnival. " Umm well seeing as Notting Hill gets 2 million attendees & this gathering was 100-150k maybe that’s not a surprise? These ‘Patriots’ surely should be capable of setting the higher standards we clearly expect from British citizens & setting an example no? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" March seemed to get a decent turnout and was “mostly peaceful” as the media likes to say. Certainly far less violence than at the average Notting Hill Carnival. Umm well seeing as Notting Hill gets 2 million attendees & this gathering was 100-150k maybe that’s not a surprise? These ‘Patriots’ surely should be capable of setting the higher standards we clearly expect from British citizens & setting an example no? " Are you saying that people who attend the Notting Hill Carnival aren’t British Citizens? Sounds racist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" March seemed to get a decent turnout and was “mostly peaceful” as the media likes to say. Certainly far less violence than at the average Notting Hill Carnival. Umm well seeing as Notting Hill gets 2 million attendees & this gathering was 100-150k maybe that’s not a surprise? These ‘Patriots’ surely should be capable of setting the higher standards we clearly expect from British citizens & setting an example no? Are you saying that people who attend the Notting Hill Carnival aren’t British Citizens? Sounds racist." Where have you pulled that from 
Deary me.
You can be a badly behaved British citizen at Notting Hill as you say there seems to be more of those there
Or you can be an impeccably behaved British Citizen at a ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally to show the first lot how to behave as it will help solve all the UK’s problems.
But they didn’t did they?
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free speech was eroded when non crime hate incidents were recorded on perception, this meant people could have police records logged against them without ever knowing. Some only found out years later when an enhanced DBS check flagged it. The majority came and still come from online posts, where one person’s opinion becomes a complaint. There was no right to defend yourself, no contact, nothing but a report made by someone else. A huge number of these incidents were recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity. The horse bolted and the law was clarified, yet thousands still carry a hate incident on their record. It was obvious that such a system would be exploited by the vengeful, and this is when I believe an attack on free speech began, by those who wanted to close down anyone who disagreed with them, with tools given to them by the state. " From the College of Policing DBS checks The recording of a non-crime hate incident is not a sanction. It does not show up on a basic, or even standard, disclosure and barring service (DBS) check. If an enhanced DBS check is carried out, which is limited to a list of high-risk positions like teachers and carers, it will not show up unless it is relevant to the job and is approved by a chief officer, who must consider an individual’s human rights of privacy and freedom of speech. Under separate Home Office rules, chief officers must also consider allowing someone the opportunity to reply before information is disclosed, and it should not be disclosed if it is trivial, simply demonstrates poor behaviour or relates merely to an individual’s lifestyle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free speech was eroded when non crime hate incidents were recorded on perception, this meant people could have police records logged against them without ever knowing. Some only found out years later when an enhanced DBS check flagged it. The majority came and still come from online posts, where one person’s opinion becomes a complaint. There was no right to defend yourself, no contact, nothing but a report made by someone else. A huge number of these incidents were recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity. The horse bolted and the law was clarified, yet thousands still carry a hate incident on their record. It was obvious that such a system would be exploited by the vengeful, and this is when I believe an attack on free speech began, by those who wanted to close down anyone who disagreed with them, with tools given to them by the state. From the College of Policing DBS checks The recording of a non-crime hate incident is not a sanction. It does not show up on a basic, or even standard, disclosure and barring service (DBS) check. If an enhanced DBS check is carried out, which is limited to a list of high-risk positions like teachers and carers, it will not show up unless it is relevant to the job and is approved by a chief officer, who must consider an individual’s human rights of privacy and freedom of speech. Under separate Home Office rules, chief officers must also consider allowing someone the opportunity to reply before information is disclosed, and it should not be disclosed if it is trivial, simply demonstrates poor behaviour or relates merely to an individual’s lifestyle. " You do this quite a lot, providing material that doesn’t really address the point being made. If you read the opening lines it should be clear the post was written in the past tense. It even states that “the law was clarified after the horse had bolted.” What you’ve now quoted is the revised guidance, which only came in after years of overreach. But the damage was already done, and, a learned behaviour now exists. That’s the issue being raised not what the rules say now, but what they allowed to happen then, and how that has shaped the now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free speech was eroded when non crime hate incidents were recorded on perception, this meant people could have police records logged against them without ever knowing. Some only found out years later when an enhanced DBS check flagged it. The majority came and still come from online posts, where one person’s opinion becomes a complaint. There was no right to defend yourself, no contact, nothing but a report made by someone else. A huge number of these incidents were recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity. The horse bolted and the law was clarified, yet thousands still carry a hate incident on their record. It was obvious that such a system would be exploited by the vengeful, and this is when I believe an attack on free speech began, by those who wanted to close down anyone who disagreed with them, with tools given to them by the state. " Short version: ‘Social Media has been a cancer on society’. Musk carries on as he is doing & I’d be looking at banning his particular tool of ‘free speech’. What he seems to be advocating is tantamount to incitement to riot. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free speech was eroded when non crime hate incidents were recorded on perception, this meant people could have police records logged against them without ever knowing. Some only found out years later when an enhanced DBS check flagged it. The majority came and still come from online posts, where one person’s opinion becomes a complaint. There was no right to defend yourself, no contact, nothing but a report made by someone else. A huge number of these incidents were recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity. The horse bolted and the law was clarified, yet thousands still carry a hate incident on their record. It was obvious that such a system would be exploited by the vengeful, and this is when I believe an attack on free speech began, by those who wanted to close down anyone who disagreed with them, with tools given to them by the state. " Out of interest, what is the source of your information? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free speech was eroded when non crime hate incidents were recorded on perception, this meant people could have police records logged against them without ever knowing. Some only found out years later when an enhanced DBS check flagged it. The majority came and still come from online posts, where one person’s opinion becomes a complaint. There was no right to defend yourself, no contact, nothing but a report made by someone else. A huge number of these incidents were recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity. The horse bolted and the law was clarified, yet thousands still carry a hate incident on their record. It was obvious that such a system would be exploited by the vengeful, and this is when I believe an attack on free speech began, by those who wanted to close down anyone who disagreed with them, with tools given to them by the state. Out of interest, what is the source of your information? " Did you honestly miss this happening and the changes that had to be forced through? Policies, very poorly designed to supply data to the Home Office and police, but nobody thought of the consequences of recording this data against people with no investigation or thresholds in place. It resulted in thousands of people having police logged incidents they never knew about, recorded against them on another persons perception. It was changed after the damage to free speech was already done.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free speech was eroded when non crime hate incidents were recorded on perception, this meant people could have police records logged against them without ever knowing. Some only found out years later when an enhanced DBS check flagged it. The majority came and still come from online posts, where one person’s opinion becomes a complaint. There was no right to defend yourself, no contact, nothing but a report made by someone else. A huge number of these incidents were recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity. The horse bolted and the law was clarified, yet thousands still carry a hate incident on their record. It was obvious that such a system would be exploited by the vengeful, and this is when I believe an attack on free speech began, by those who wanted to close down anyone who disagreed with them, with tools given to them by the state. Out of interest, what is the source of your information? Did you honestly miss this happening and the changes that had to be forced through? Policies, very poorly designed to supply data to the Home Office and police, but nobody thought of the consequences of recording this data against people with no investigation or thresholds in place. It resulted in thousands of people having police logged incidents they never knew about, recorded against them on another persons perception. It was changed after the damage to free speech was already done.. " A huge number recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity - where has that come from? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can be a badly behaved British citizen at Notting Hill as you say there seems to be more of those there Or you can be an impeccably behaved British Citizen at a ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally to show the first lot how to behave as it will help solve all the UK’s problems." Sounds like you expect white people to behave in a more decent fashion than darker skinned people. Also seems that you expect the whites to set an example and show the non-whites how to behave. Sounds a bit racist to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free speech was eroded when non crime hate incidents were recorded on perception, this meant people could have police records logged against them without ever knowing. Some only found out years later when an enhanced DBS check flagged it. The majority came and still come from online posts, where one person’s opinion becomes a complaint. There was no right to defend yourself, no contact, nothing but a report made by someone else. A huge number of these incidents were recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity. The horse bolted and the law was clarified, yet thousands still carry a hate incident on their record. It was obvious that such a system would be exploited by the vengeful, and this is when I believe an attack on free speech began, by those who wanted to close down anyone who disagreed with them, with tools given to them by the state. Out of interest, what is the source of your information? Did you honestly miss this happening and the changes that had to be forced through? Policies, very poorly designed to supply data to the Home Office and police, but nobody thought of the consequences of recording this data against people with no investigation or thresholds in place. It resulted in thousands of people having police logged incidents they never knew about, recorded against them on another persons perception. It was changed after the damage to free speech was already done.. A huge number recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity - where has that come from? " Data is out there, as you once said to me 
The core issue is the way they were collecting data that began the erosion of free speech. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can be a badly behaved British citizen at Notting Hill as you say there seems to be more of those there Or you can be an impeccably behaved British Citizen at a ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally to show the first lot how to behave as it will help solve all the UK’s problems. Sounds like you expect white people to behave in a more decent fashion than darker skinned people. Also seems that you expect the whites to set an example and show the non-whites how to behave. Sounds a bit racist to me." Lolz. Top bantz. What’s the point of continually pointing out the behavioural failings of darker skinned people if the white indigenous Brits aren’t going to behave any better? (PS it was the other poster who mentioned Notting Hill, not me, we know why he mentioned Notting Hill don’t we…..) Isn’t it all about improving the country? Otherwise, what’s the point exactly? Does anybody know the point of yesterday? People seem to be being a little coy about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free speech was eroded when non crime hate incidents were recorded on perception, this meant people could have police records logged against them without ever knowing. Some only found out years later when an enhanced DBS check flagged it. The majority came and still come from online posts, where one person’s opinion becomes a complaint. There was no right to defend yourself, no contact, nothing but a report made by someone else. A huge number of these incidents were recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity. The horse bolted and the law was clarified, yet thousands still carry a hate incident on their record. It was obvious that such a system would be exploited by the vengeful, and this is when I believe an attack on free speech began, by those who wanted to close down anyone who disagreed with them, with tools given to them by the state. Out of interest, what is the source of your information? Did you honestly miss this happening and the changes that had to be forced through? Policies, very poorly designed to supply data to the Home Office and police, but nobody thought of the consequences of recording this data against people with no investigation or thresholds in place. It resulted in thousands of people having police logged incidents they never knew about, recorded against them on another persons perception. It was changed after the damage to free speech was already done.. A huge number recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity - where has that come from? Data is out there, as you once said to me
The core issue is the way they were collecting data that began the erosion of free speech. "I've looked and I can't find any data on non crime hate incidents, apart from a House of Lords debate where one party claimed that those negatively affected by the recording of a hate incident was 0.1%, but no mention of where that statistic was obtained. As such, I'm interested to know. Anyway, how was free speech being eroded if those individuals had a hate incident recorded against them, but they had no idea it was there?! They would carry on, saying whatever they wanted, surely? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free speech was eroded when non crime hate incidents were recorded on perception, this meant people could have police records logged against them without ever knowing. Some only found out years later when an enhanced DBS check flagged it. The majority came and still come from online posts, where one person’s opinion becomes a complaint. There was no right to defend yourself, no contact, nothing but a report made by someone else. A huge number of these incidents were recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity. The horse bolted and the law was clarified, yet thousands still carry a hate incident on their record. It was obvious that such a system would be exploited by the vengeful, and this is when I believe an attack on free speech began, by those who wanted to close down anyone who disagreed with them, with tools given to them by the state. Out of interest, what is the source of your information? Did you honestly miss this happening and the changes that had to be forced through? Policies, very poorly designed to supply data to the Home Office and police, but nobody thought of the consequences of recording this data against people with no investigation or thresholds in place. It resulted in thousands of people having police logged incidents they never knew about, recorded against them on another persons perception. It was changed after the damage to free speech was already done.. A huge number recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity - where has that come from? Data is out there, as you once said to me
The core issue is the way they were collecting data that began the erosion of free speech.
I've looked and I can't find any data on non crime hate incidents, apart from a House of Lords debate where one party claimed that those negatively affected by the recording of a hate incident was 0.1%, but no mention of where that statistic was obtained.
As such, I'm interested to know.
Anyway, how was free speech being eroded if those individuals had a hate incident recorded against them, but they had no idea it was there?! They would carry on, saying whatever they wanted, surely? "If you stop above at “against them”, you will see the problem. People were having hate incidents recorded against them simply because someone else registered a concern with the police about what they had written. Most never knew it had happened. Those records haven’t been removed. On paper, they shouldn’t appear on a check unless it is deemed relevant, but disclosure is still at the discretion of the police. That’s why it eroded free speech, unknown records can resurface years later with real consequences, and nothing was ever investigated, just logged. That approach by the police and Home Office once known really did impact what was being said and reported online. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free speech was eroded when non crime hate incidents were recorded on perception, this meant people could have police records logged against them without ever knowing. Some only found out years later when an enhanced DBS check flagged it. The majority came and still come from online posts, where one person’s opinion becomes a complaint. There was no right to defend yourself, no contact, nothing but a report made by someone else. A huge number of these incidents were recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity. The horse bolted and the law was clarified, yet thousands still carry a hate incident on their record. It was obvious that such a system would be exploited by the vengeful, and this is when I believe an attack on free speech began, by those who wanted to close down anyone who disagreed with them, with tools given to them by the state. Out of interest, what is the source of your information? Did you honestly miss this happening and the changes that had to be forced through? Policies, very poorly designed to supply data to the Home Office and police, but nobody thought of the consequences of recording this data against people with no investigation or thresholds in place. It resulted in thousands of people having police logged incidents they never knew about, recorded against them on another persons perception. It was changed after the damage to free speech was already done.. A huge number recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity - where has that come from? Data is out there, as you once said to me
The core issue is the way they were collecting data that began the erosion of free speech.
I've looked and I can't find any data on non crime hate incidents, apart from a House of Lords debate where one party claimed that those negatively affected by the recording of a hate incident was 0.1%, but no mention of where that statistic was obtained.
As such, I'm interested to know.
Anyway, how was free speech being eroded if those individuals had a hate incident recorded against them, but they had no idea it was there?! They would carry on, saying whatever they wanted, surely?
If you stop above at “against them”, you will see the problem. People were having hate incidents recorded against them simply because someone else registered a concern with the police about what they had written. Most never knew it had happened. Those records haven’t been removed. On paper, they shouldn’t appear on a check unless it is deemed relevant, but disclosure is still at the discretion of the police. That’s why it eroded free speech, unknown records can resurface years later with real consequences, and nothing was ever investigated, just logged.
That approach by the police and Home Office once known really did impact what was being said and reported online."Is your focus on line speech, then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can be a badly behaved British citizen at Notting Hill as you say there seems to be more of those there Or you can be an impeccably behaved British Citizen at a ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally to show the first lot how to behave as it will help solve all the UK’s problems." "Sounds like you expect white people to behave in a more decent fashion than darker skinned people. Also seems that you expect the whites to set an example and show the non-whites how to behave. Sounds a bit racist to me." "Lolz. Top bantz. What’s the point of continually pointing out the behavioural failings of darker skinned people if the white indigenous Brits aren’t going to behave any better? (PS it was the other poster who mentioned Notting Hill, not me, we know why he mentioned Notting Hill don’t we…..)" So the other bloke refers to crime levels in an area of London, and you're allowed to conclude that he was being racist. But you straight out say that you don't expect black people to behave to the same standards as whites, and that's OK? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can be a badly behaved British citizen at Notting Hill as you say there seems to be more of those there Or you can be an impeccably behaved British Citizen at a ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally to show the first lot how to behave as it will help solve all the UK’s problems. Sounds like you expect white people to behave in a more decent fashion than darker skinned people. Also seems that you expect the whites to set an example and show the non-whites how to behave. Sounds a bit racist to me. Lolz. Top bantz. What’s the point of continually pointing out the behavioural failings of darker skinned people if the white indigenous Brits aren’t going to behave any better? (PS it was the other poster who mentioned Notting Hill, not me, we know why he mentioned Notting Hill don’t we…..) So the other bloke refers to crime levels in an area of London, and you're allowed to conclude that he was being racist. But you straight out say that you don't expect black people to behave to the same standards as whites, and that's OK?" That's an amazing take on what has been said. Bravo! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can be a badly behaved British citizen at Notting Hill as you say there seems to be more of those there Or you can be an impeccably behaved British Citizen at a ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally to show the first lot how to behave as it will help solve all the UK’s problems. Sounds like you expect white people to behave in a more decent fashion than darker skinned people. Also seems that you expect the whites to set an example and show the non-whites how to behave. Sounds a bit racist to me. Lolz. Top bantz. What’s the point of continually pointing out the behavioural failings of darker skinned people if the white indigenous Brits aren’t going to behave any better? (PS it was the other poster who mentioned Notting Hill, not me, we know why he mentioned Notting Hill don’t we…..) So the other bloke refers to crime levels in an area of London, and you're allowed to conclude that he was being racist. But you straight out say that you don't expect black people to behave to the same standards as whites, and that's OK?" Wtf are you on about? ‘An area in London’ LOL. Why didn’t he say riots in Southport for instance then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free speech was eroded when non crime hate incidents were recorded on perception, this meant people could have police records logged against them without ever knowing. Some only found out years later when an enhanced DBS check flagged it. The majority came and still come from online posts, where one person’s opinion becomes a complaint. There was no right to defend yourself, no contact, nothing but a report made by someone else. A huge number of these incidents were recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity. The horse bolted and the law was clarified, yet thousands still carry a hate incident on their record. It was obvious that such a system would be exploited by the vengeful, and this is when I believe an attack on free speech began, by those who wanted to close down anyone who disagreed with them, with tools given to them by the state. Out of interest, what is the source of your information? Did you honestly miss this happening and the changes that had to be forced through? Policies, very poorly designed to supply data to the Home Office and police, but nobody thought of the consequences of recording this data against people with no investigation or thresholds in place. It resulted in thousands of people having police logged incidents they never knew about, recorded against them on another persons perception. It was changed after the damage to free speech was already done.. A huge number recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity - where has that come from? Data is out there, as you once said to me
The core issue is the way they were collecting data that began the erosion of free speech.
I've looked and I can't find any data on non crime hate incidents, apart from a House of Lords debate where one party claimed that those negatively affected by the recording of a hate incident was 0.1%, but no mention of where that statistic was obtained.
As such, I'm interested to know.
Anyway, how was free speech being eroded if those individuals had a hate incident recorded against them, but they had no idea it was there?! They would carry on, saying whatever they wanted, surely?
If you stop above at “against them”, you will see the problem. People were having hate incidents recorded against them simply because someone else registered a concern with the police about what they had written. Most never knew it had happened. Those records haven’t been removed. On paper, they shouldn’t appear on a check unless it is deemed relevant, but disclosure is still at the discretion of the police. That’s why it eroded free speech, unknown records can resurface years later with real consequences, and nothing was ever investigated, just logged.
That approach by the police and Home Office once known really did impact what was being said and reported online.
Is your focus on line speech, then? "That is where the largest amount of recorded incidents came from, however any could walk into a police station and report X down the pub and it would have recorded against X. No investigation, no threshold. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why didn’t he say riots in Southport for instance then?" Because he was contrasting the low level of crime at what was expected to be a violent demonstration, to the higher level of crime at a family-friendly festival. Comparing a low level of crime to an entirely illegal activity would be a bit pointless | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free speech was eroded when non crime hate incidents were recorded on perception, this meant people could have police records logged against them without ever knowing. Some only found out years later when an enhanced DBS check flagged it. The majority came and still come from online posts, where one person’s opinion becomes a complaint. There was no right to defend yourself, no contact, nothing but a report made by someone else. A huge number of these incidents were recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity. The horse bolted and the law was clarified, yet thousands still carry a hate incident on their record. It was obvious that such a system would be exploited by the vengeful, and this is when I believe an attack on free speech began, by those who wanted to close down anyone who disagreed with them, with tools given to them by the state. Out of interest, what is the source of your information? Did you honestly miss this happening and the changes that had to be forced through? Policies, very poorly designed to supply data to the Home Office and police, but nobody thought of the consequences of recording this data against people with no investigation or thresholds in place. It resulted in thousands of people having police logged incidents they never knew about, recorded against them on another persons perception. It was changed after the damage to free speech was already done.. A huge number recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity - where has that come from? Data is out there, as you once said to me
The core issue is the way they were collecting data that began the erosion of free speech.
I've looked and I can't find any data on non crime hate incidents, apart from a House of Lords debate where one party claimed that those negatively affected by the recording of a hate incident was 0.1%, but no mention of where that statistic was obtained.
As such, I'm interested to know.
Anyway, how was free speech being eroded if those individuals had a hate incident recorded against them, but they had no idea it was there?! They would carry on, saying whatever they wanted, surely?
If you stop above at “against them”, you will see the problem. People were having hate incidents recorded against them simply because someone else registered a concern with the police about what they had written. Most never knew it had happened. Those records haven’t been removed. On paper, they shouldn’t appear on a check unless it is deemed relevant, but disclosure is still at the discretion of the police. That’s why it eroded free speech, unknown records can resurface years later with real consequences, and nothing was ever investigated, just logged.
That approach by the police and Home Office once known really did impact what was being said and reported online.
Is your focus on line speech, then?
That is where the largest amount of recorded incidents came from, however any could walk into a police station and report X down the pub and it would have recorded against X.
No investigation, no threshold."No investigation, because no crime committed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free speech was eroded when non crime hate incidents were recorded on perception, this meant people could have police records logged against them without ever knowing. Some only found out years later when an enhanced DBS check flagged it. The majority came and still come from online posts, where one person’s opinion becomes a complaint. There was no right to defend yourself, no contact, nothing but a report made by someone else. A huge number of these incidents were recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity. The horse bolted and the law was clarified, yet thousands still carry a hate incident on their record. It was obvious that such a system would be exploited by the vengeful, and this is when I believe an attack on free speech began, by those who wanted to close down anyone who disagreed with them, with tools given to them by the state. Out of interest, what is the source of your information? Did you honestly miss this happening and the changes that had to be forced through? Policies, very poorly designed to supply data to the Home Office and police, but nobody thought of the consequences of recording this data against people with no investigation or thresholds in place. It resulted in thousands of people having police logged incidents they never knew about, recorded against them on another persons perception. It was changed after the damage to free speech was already done.. A huge number recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity - where has that come from? Data is out there, as you once said to me
The core issue is the way they were collecting data that began the erosion of free speech.
I've looked and I can't find any data on non crime hate incidents, apart from a House of Lords debate where one party claimed that those negatively affected by the recording of a hate incident was 0.1%, but no mention of where that statistic was obtained.
As such, I'm interested to know.
Anyway, how was free speech being eroded if those individuals had a hate incident recorded against them, but they had no idea it was there?! They would carry on, saying whatever they wanted, surely?
If you stop above at “against them”, you will see the problem. People were having hate incidents recorded against them simply because someone else registered a concern with the police about what they had written. Most never knew it had happened. Those records haven’t been removed. On paper, they shouldn’t appear on a check unless it is deemed relevant, but disclosure is still at the discretion of the police. That’s why it eroded free speech, unknown records can resurface years later with real consequences, and nothing was ever investigated, just logged.
That approach by the police and Home Office once known really did impact what was being said and reported online.
Is your focus on line speech, then?
That is where the largest amount of recorded incidents came from, however any could walk into a police station and report X down the pub and it would have recorded against X.
No investigation, no threshold.
No investigation, because no crime committed. "How would they know that, it wasn't investigated but it was recorded against them. Keep up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why didn’t he say riots in Southport for instance then? Because he was contrasting the low level of crime at what was expected to be a violent demonstration, to the higher level of crime at a family-friendly festival. Comparing a low level of crime to an entirely illegal activity would be a bit pointless " Very debatable whether there was a higher level of crime at Notting Hill per person attending though. So, he would have been better off picking a comparatively sized event wouldn’t he? You know, instead of a much larger one dominated by ethnic minorities. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm also rather surprised people here are asking what the Robinson event was trying to achieve.. Surely if people are going to form an opinion based on fact, they need to look beyond the headline, or they have no opinion to argue. " Are you a politician? Just asking because when the right wing could be considered culpable of inappropriate thought, speech or actions you seem incredibly oblique or evasive. Do you condone what Musk seems to be advocating for? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free speech was eroded when non crime hate incidents were recorded on perception, this meant people could have police records logged against them without ever knowing. Some only found out years later when an enhanced DBS check flagged it. The majority came and still come from online posts, where one person’s opinion becomes a complaint. There was no right to defend yourself, no contact, nothing but a report made by someone else. A huge number of these incidents were recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity. The horse bolted and the law was clarified, yet thousands still carry a hate incident on their record. It was obvious that such a system would be exploited by the vengeful, and this is when I believe an attack on free speech began, by those who wanted to close down anyone who disagreed with them, with tools given to them by the state. Out of interest, what is the source of your information? Did you honestly miss this happening and the changes that had to be forced through? Policies, very poorly designed to supply data to the Home Office and police, but nobody thought of the consequences of recording this data against people with no investigation or thresholds in place. It resulted in thousands of people having police logged incidents they never knew about, recorded against them on another persons perception. It was changed after the damage to free speech was already done.. A huge number recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity - where has that come from? Data is out there, as you once said to me
The core issue is the way they were collecting data that began the erosion of free speech.
I've looked and I can't find any data on non crime hate incidents, apart from a House of Lords debate where one party claimed that those negatively affected by the recording of a hate incident was 0.1%, but no mention of where that statistic was obtained.
As such, I'm interested to know.
Anyway, how was free speech being eroded if those individuals had a hate incident recorded against them, but they had no idea it was there?! They would carry on, saying whatever they wanted, surely?
If you stop above at “against them”, you will see the problem. People were having hate incidents recorded against them simply because someone else registered a concern with the police about what they had written. Most never knew it had happened. Those records haven’t been removed. On paper, they shouldn’t appear on a check unless it is deemed relevant, but disclosure is still at the discretion of the police. That’s why it eroded free speech, unknown records can resurface years later with real consequences, and nothing was ever investigated, just logged.
That approach by the police and Home Office once known really did impact what was being said and reported online.
Is your focus on line speech, then?
That is where the largest amount of recorded incidents came from, however any could walk into a police station and report X down the pub and it would have recorded against X.
No investigation, no threshold.
No investigation, because no crime committed.
How would they know that, it wasn't investigated but it was recorded against them. Keep up. "OK. So someone has a hate incident recorded against them, know nothing about it, because it wasn't a crime, it hasn't infringed on their life in any way (unless they were part of this alleged 0.1% who underwent an enhanced DBS) - they have been free to speak their mind ever since the hate incident was recorded. How is that infringing on free speech? It's clearly not! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Very debatable whether there was a higher level of crime at Notting Hill per person attending though. So, he would have been better off picking a comparatively sized event wouldn’t he? You know, instead of a much larger one dominated by ethnic minorities." You're still trying to hint that the other guy is racist, while ignoring your own more obviously racist statements. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free speech was eroded when non crime hate incidents were recorded on perception, this meant people could have police records logged against them without ever knowing. Some only found out years later when an enhanced DBS check flagged it. The majority came and still come from online posts, where one person’s opinion becomes a complaint. There was no right to defend yourself, no contact, nothing but a report made by someone else. A huge number of these incidents were recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity. The horse bolted and the law was clarified, yet thousands still carry a hate incident on their record. It was obvious that such a system would be exploited by the vengeful, and this is when I believe an attack on free speech began, by those who wanted to close down anyone who disagreed with them, with tools given to them by the state. Out of interest, what is the source of your information? Did you honestly miss this happening and the changes that had to be forced through? Policies, very poorly designed to supply data to the Home Office and police, but nobody thought of the consequences of recording this data against people with no investigation or thresholds in place. It resulted in thousands of people having police logged incidents they never knew about, recorded against them on another persons perception. It was changed after the damage to free speech was already done.. A huge number recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity - where has that come from? Data is out there, as you once said to me
The core issue is the way they were collecting data that began the erosion of free speech.
I've looked and I can't find any data on non crime hate incidents, apart from a House of Lords debate where one party claimed that those negatively affected by the recording of a hate incident was 0.1%, but no mention of where that statistic was obtained.
As such, I'm interested to know.
Anyway, how was free speech being eroded if those individuals had a hate incident recorded against them, but they had no idea it was there?! They would carry on, saying whatever they wanted, surely?
If you stop above at “against them”, you will see the problem. People were having hate incidents recorded against them simply because someone else registered a concern with the police about what they had written. Most never knew it had happened. Those records haven’t been removed. On paper, they shouldn’t appear on a check unless it is deemed relevant, but disclosure is still at the discretion of the police. That’s why it eroded free speech, unknown records can resurface years later with real consequences, and nothing was ever investigated, just logged.
That approach by the police and Home Office once known really did impact what was being said and reported online.
Is your focus on line speech, then?
That is where the largest amount of recorded incidents came from, however any could walk into a police station and report X down the pub and it would have recorded against X.
No investigation, no threshold.
No investigation, because no crime committed.
How would they know that, it wasn't investigated but it was recorded against them. Keep up.
OK. So someone has a hate incident recorded against them, know nothing about it, because it wasn't a crime, it hasn't infringed on their life in any way (unless they were part of this alleged 0.1% who underwent an enhanced DBS) - they have been free to speak their mind ever since the hate incident was recorded.
How is that infringing on free speech? It's clearly not! "I feel like you’re missing the point. It is infringing on free speech maybe not in obvious, but in subtle, long lasting ones. Once people realised how this data was being collected, simply based on someone’s perception, without investigation or proof, it changed the shape of online expression and other places such as universities. What they were willing to say online. What jokes or criticisms comedians avoided, and what was reported as “hate.” It became such a problem that the laws and guidance had to be changed. I have repeated myself for the last time now, you appeared right at the start to not to have knowledge of this subject. Look it up and see how this changed the landscape rather than just going on your gut instinct. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free speech was eroded when non crime hate incidents were recorded on perception, this meant people could have police records logged against them without ever knowing. Some only found out years later when an enhanced DBS check flagged it. The majority came and still come from online posts, where one person’s opinion becomes a complaint. There was no right to defend yourself, no contact, nothing but a report made by someone else. A huge number of these incidents were recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity. The horse bolted and the law was clarified, yet thousands still carry a hate incident on their record. It was obvious that such a system would be exploited by the vengeful, and this is when I believe an attack on free speech began, by those who wanted to close down anyone who disagreed with them, with tools given to them by the state. Out of interest, what is the source of your information? Did you honestly miss this happening and the changes that had to be forced through? Policies, very poorly designed to supply data to the Home Office and police, but nobody thought of the consequences of recording this data against people with no investigation or thresholds in place. It resulted in thousands of people having police logged incidents they never knew about, recorded against them on another persons perception. It was changed after the damage to free speech was already done.. A huge number recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity - where has that come from? Data is out there, as you once said to me
The core issue is the way they were collecting data that began the erosion of free speech.
I've looked and I can't find any data on non crime hate incidents, apart from a House of Lords debate where one party claimed that those negatively affected by the recording of a hate incident was 0.1%, but no mention of where that statistic was obtained.
As such, I'm interested to know.
Anyway, how was free speech being eroded if those individuals had a hate incident recorded against them, but they had no idea it was there?! They would carry on, saying whatever they wanted, surely?
If you stop above at “against them”, you will see the problem. People were having hate incidents recorded against them simply because someone else registered a concern with the police about what they had written. Most never knew it had happened. Those records haven’t been removed. On paper, they shouldn’t appear on a check unless it is deemed relevant, but disclosure is still at the discretion of the police. That’s why it eroded free speech, unknown records can resurface years later with real consequences, and nothing was ever investigated, just logged.
That approach by the police and Home Office once known really did impact what was being said and reported online.
Is your focus on line speech, then?
That is where the largest amount of recorded incidents came from, however any could walk into a police station and report X down the pub and it would have recorded against X.
No investigation, no threshold.
No investigation, because no crime committed.
How would they know that, it wasn't investigated but it was recorded against them. Keep up.
OK. So someone has a hate incident recorded against them, know nothing about it, because it wasn't a crime, it hasn't infringed on their life in any way (unless they were part of this alleged 0.1% who underwent an enhanced DBS) - they have been free to speak their mind ever since the hate incident was recorded.
How is that infringing on free speech? It's clearly not!
I feel like you’re missing the point. It is infringing on free speech maybe not in obvious, but in subtle, long lasting ones.
Once people realised how this data was being collected, simply based on someone’s perception, without investigation or proof, it changed the shape of online expression and other places such as universities. What they were willing to say online. What jokes or criticisms comedians avoided, and what was reported as “hate.” It became such a problem that the laws and guidance had to be changed.
I have repeated myself for the last time now, you appeared right at the start to not to have knowledge of this subject. Look it up and see how this changed the landscape rather than just going on your gut instinct. "I have plenty of knowledge on the subject  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You're still trying to hint that the other guy is racist, while ignoring your own more obviously racist statements." Indigenous white Brits want a better country don’t they, hence the gathering? So behave better than they did in London yesterday & show us the way then? Otherwise, there is no improvement is there. (…it was overwhelmingly that demographic in London yesterday wasn’t it, sorry for not having any personal control over the turnout, but I guess that makes me a racist apparently) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You're still trying to hint that the other guy is racist, while ignoring your own more obviously racist statements. Indigenous white Brits want a better country don’t they, hence the gathering? So behave better than they did in London yesterday & show us the way then? Otherwise, there is no improvement is there. (…it was overwhelmingly that demographic in London yesterday wasn’t it, sorry for not having any personal control over the turnout, but I guess that makes me a racist apparently)" “Indigenous white Brits”. “Darker skinned people”. Are you sure you know what century it is? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 . The fewer people like these and Robinson around, the better! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's desperate for attention and would sensibly be ignored. He didn't seem to add anything positive for the US government, apart from funding $millions for Trump . The fewer people like these and Robinson around, the better! "“The fewer people like these and Robinson around, the better!”. What does this mean? What are you proposing to do so they are “no longer around”? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Plenty of white Brits do not share these views. 110k turnout from 70 million population. Largely represented by over fed salad dodgers, who are they going to fight. 99% wouldn’t pass an infantry bft No, they are ‘patriots’ mate. ‘Patriots’ who assault the police & have little respect for law enforcement. Send them to Lympstone, they will be begging for the first train home. " Plenty of ex green lids there.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's desperate for attention and would sensibly be ignored. He didn't seem to add anything positive for the US government, apart from funding $millions for Trump . The fewer people like these and Robinson around, the better!
“The fewer people like these and Robinson around, the better!”.
What does this mean? What are you proposing to do so they are “no longer around”?"I took it to be a turn of phrase. Nothing more. No one is advocating anything to harm anyone. Given the events in the USA over the past few days I would hope we are all focussed on dampening down reactions and poor phrasings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Elon is doing it for different motives. He is an attention seeker and pokes his nose into issues like these. He doesn't have any consistent view on these matters himself. But on the topic of free speech, the British politicians have been eroding free speech using different legal frameworks for a while now and people have been signing up to these are signing up to these assuming that only their political opponents are affected. Both the Tories and Labour are guilty of contributing to this. The communications act, public order act, religious and racial hatred act and more recently the online safety act. You should notice how united the Tories and Labour are when it comes to laws which take away people's freedom of speech. This is why I keep repeating that the first amendment is cool. People who wrote it knew that politicians from either side are power hungry fucks who would look for every opportunity to take away your rights." His only motive is to cause carnage. The more the world is in turmoil, the more it suits him. He has all the money in the world and he can't buy the one thing he wants more than anything, an American Birth Certificate... or for people to like him! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Elon is doing it for different motives. He is an attention seeker and pokes his nose into issues like these. He doesn't have any consistent view on these matters himself. But on the topic of free speech, the British politicians have been eroding free speech using different legal frameworks for a while now and people have been signing up to these are signing up to these assuming that only their political opponents are affected. Both the Tories and Labour are guilty of contributing to this. The communications act, public order act, religious and racial hatred act and more recently the online safety act. You should notice how united the Tories and Labour are when it comes to laws which take away people's freedom of speech. This is why I keep repeating that the first amendment is cool. People who wrote it knew that politicians from either side are power hungry fucks who would look for every opportunity to take away your rights." One of the problems with the concept of “free speech” is that the UK, as far as I am aware, has never had this explicitly defined in law. The historic approach in this country has always been that you can say and do whatever you want as long as the law doesn’t prohibit it. The Americans have a fundamentally different approach and so trying to move concepts between the two systems just doesn’t work. I do agree that we are getting over reach of laws but that’s not quite the same as eroding free speech. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Elon is doing it for different motives. He is an attention seeker and pokes his nose into issues like these. He doesn't have any consistent view on these matters himself. But on the topic of free speech, the British politicians have been eroding free speech using different legal frameworks for a while now and people have been signing up to these are signing up to these assuming that only their political opponents are affected. Both the Tories and Labour are guilty of contributing to this. The communications act, public order act, religious and racial hatred act and more recently the online safety act. You should notice how united the Tories and Labour are when it comes to laws which take away people's freedom of speech. This is why I keep repeating that the first amendment is cool. People who wrote it knew that politicians from either side are power hungry fucks who would look for every opportunity to take away your rights. One of the problems with the concept of “free speech” is that the UK, as far as I am aware, has never had this explicitly defined in law. The historic approach in this country has always been that you can say and do whatever you want as long as the law doesn’t prohibit it. The Americans have a fundamentally different approach and so trying to move concepts between the two systems just doesn’t work. I do agree that we are getting over reach of laws but that’s not quite the same as eroding free speech." UK doesn't have a written constitution which is where the difference between UK and US comes from. Freedom of speech is on a spectrum. On one end, you have absolute freedom of speech where you can go publicly and tell you want to kill people and you wouldn't be arrested for that. On the other end, you aren't allowed to speak or express yourself at all. No country is on these extreme ends. US has is more towards the freedom side. The first amendment has exceptions. But these exceptions are clearly defined. One of the exceptions is "direct calls for violence". It has to be a direct call. Law enforcement cannot interpret things as a call for violence and arrest people. And in case of doubts, the legal system is always expected to err towards freedom of speech. UK is in a hot mess right now. There is no constitution that protects freedom of speech. ECHR only creates an illusion that it protects freedom of speech. All the laws in UK around freedom of speech are so vague that allows police and courts to interpret however they want. This is one of the root causes for the two tier justice system. And successive governments only make things worse. It's unfortunate that the push for freedom of speech comes from the likes of Tommy Robinson. It must come from all the people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Musk supports Trump, Milei, Poilievre, AfD, Lega, Vox, Meloni etc. The idea that he isn't consistently right-wing is about as believable as the claim that his Nazi salutes weren't Nazi salutes." All the people who you listed have different economic and social views. And who said Musk doesn't have consistently right wing views? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's desperate for attention and would sensibly be ignored. He didn't seem to add anything positive for the US government, apart from funding $millions for Trump . The fewer people like these and Robinson around, the better!
“The fewer people like these and Robinson around, the better!”.
What does this mean? What are you proposing to do so they are “no longer around”?
I took it to be a turn of phrase. Nothing more. No one is advocating anything to harm anyone.
Given the events in the USA over the past few days I would hope we are all focussed on dampening down reactions and poor phrasings."How do you know the person isn’t advocating violence? Do you know them? I agree totally that people should calm the language down. Hence why I raised it. I suggest people consider their use of language carefully in the current climate. And be realistic as to what the motives of others might be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All the people who you listed have different economic and social views. And who said Musk doesn't have consistently right wing views?" So what did you mean by "He doesn't have any consistent view on these matters himself"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All the people who you listed have different economic and social views. And who said Musk doesn't have consistently right wing views? So what did you mean by "He doesn't have any consistent view on these matters himself"?" On freedom of speech. He calls himself a freedom of speech "absolutist" but his actions show he isn't. Freedom of speech isn't a right wing principle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first amendment has exceptions. But these exceptions are clearly defined. One of the exceptions is "direct calls for violence". It has to be a direct call. Law enforcement cannot interpret things as a call for violence and arrest people. And in case of doubts, the legal system is always expected to err towards freedom of speech." Would... “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them." ...be considered a direct call for violence? Or would this be considered within the realm of freedom of speech under the First Amendment? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first amendment has exceptions. But these exceptions are clearly defined. One of the exceptions is "direct calls for violence". It has to be a direct call. Law enforcement cannot interpret things as a call for violence and arrest people. And in case of doubts, the legal system is always expected to err towards freedom of speech. Would... “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them." ...be considered a direct call for violence? Or would this be considered within the realm of freedom of speech under the First Amendment? " Mass deportation now would not. But asking to set fire on hotels would be illegal because it's a direct call for violence. It's not rocket science. On the other hand, the communications act in UK says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive" on the internet. Who decides what's "grossly offensive"? The public order/religious hatred act lets government arrest people who are expressing themselves even if others would resort to violence based on this expression. So you get arrested in UK for burning a Quran but you won't be arrested in the US for doing the same. The first amendment pisses all over UK's laws when it comes to freedom of speech. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free speech was eroded when non crime hate incidents were recorded on perception, this meant people could have police records logged against them without ever knowing. Some only found out years later when an enhanced DBS check flagged it. The majority came and still come from online posts, where one person’s opinion becomes a complaint. There was no right to defend yourself, no contact, nothing but a report made by someone else. A huge number of these incidents were recorded for misgendering or questioning trans identity. The horse bolted and the law was clarified, yet thousands still carry a hate incident on their record. It was obvious that such a system would be exploited by the vengeful, and this is when I believe an attack on free speech began, by those who wanted to close down anyone who disagreed with them, with tools given to them by the state. " Being transgender, I will except my part in everything that is wrong within the country. I will now go and stand in the naughty woman corner (trans woman corner i might add) P.S do you have actual figures on your statement about relation to misgendering a trans woman or trans man and a criminal record ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mass deportation now would not. But asking to set fire on hotels would be illegal because it's a direct call for violence. It's not rocket science." So presumably you condemn Reform for giving Connoly a platform at their conference and presenting her as political prisoner and an example of how the UK is crushing free speech? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" “Indigenous white Brits”. “Darker skinned people”. Are you sure you know what century it is?" I do. Don’t worry mate I’ll pop your dummy back in. No need to worry, those ‘indigenous white Brits’ are still the majority… It was your pal who initially used the phrase ‘darker skinned people’ btw. I was replying in kind. Dread to think how you may refer to those ‘darker skinned people’ when you are sat in your house screaming angst at the walls after being spoonfed outrage & wound up by GB News eh? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mass deportation now would not. But asking to set fire on hotels would be illegal because it's a direct call for violence. It's not rocket science. So presumably you condemn Reform for giving Connoly a platform at their conference and presenting her as political prisoner and an example of how the UK is crushing free speech?" Yes I do. I also condemn Blair for passing laws which have resulted in about 30 arrests a day for social media posts and blasphemy laws. My problem is with people who pretend to be freedom of speech proponents and then do mental gymnastics to support Blair's laws and people getting arrested over burning a book. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes I do. I also condemn Blair for passing laws which have resulted in about 30 arrests a day for social media posts and blasphemy laws. My problem is with people who pretend to be freedom of speech proponents and then do mental gymnastics to support Blair's laws and people getting arrested over burning a book." So you'll see then that Reform, by promoting Connolly as a political prisoner and the clearest example of the establishment's attack on free speech, is in fact causing great damage to the cause you care about. Because rather than presenting real evidence (to what you think is the high standard of the US First Amendment) they are instead glorifying criminality and making a mockery of all the right-wing talk about free speech being under attack. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes I do. I also condemn Blair for passing laws which have resulted in about 30 arrests a day for social media posts and blasphemy laws. My problem is with people who pretend to be freedom of speech proponents and then do mental gymnastics to support Blair's laws and people getting arrested over burning a book. So you'll see then that Reform, by promoting Connolly as a political prisoner and the clearest example of the establishment's attack on free speech, is in fact causing great damage to the cause you care about. Because rather than presenting real evidence (to what you think is the high standard of the US First Amendment) they are instead glorifying criminality and making a mockery of all the right-wing talk about free speech being under attack. " Do you agree that Blair has been responsible for eroding freedom of speech in UK? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you agree that Blair has been responsible for eroding freedom of speech in UK?" Yes. Blair and Blunket's authoritarianism prompted the beginning of my journey away from Labour. And the current government are continuing the pattern by classifying a direct action protest group as terrorists. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" “Indigenous white Brits”. “Darker skinned people”. Are you sure you know what century it is? I do. Don’t worry mate I’ll pop your dummy back in. No need to worry, those ‘indigenous white Brits’ are still the majority… It was your pal who initially used the phrase ‘darker skinned people’ btw. I was replying in kind. Dread to think how you may refer to those ‘darker skinned people’ when you are sat in your house screaming angst at the walls after being spoonfed outrage & wound up by GB News eh? " I just hope that any People of Colour who are unfortunate enough to read your posts aren’t too traumatised by the Victorian language. Put away the Pith Helmet and step into the 20th Century. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you agree that Blair has been responsible for eroding freedom of speech in UK? Yes. Blair and Blunket's authoritarianism prompted the beginning of my journey away from Labour. And the current government are continuing the pattern by classifying a direct action protest group as terrorists." Cool, about Reform's actions with Lucy Connolly: I am pro freedom of speech. But I am not a freedom of speech "absolutist". I believe that the first amendment strikes a good balance between protecting freedom of speech and stopping physical harm. It is also much less ambiguous compared to UK's laws and multiple times better than the ECHR. So I personally don't agree with what Reform did with Lucy Connolly.She made a direct call for violence and got arrested. To judge Reform's attitude towards free speech, I need to know their take on it. Are they absolutists? If they are, then supporting Lucy Connolly is consistent with their views. If not, they have to explain where they draw the line. If they are going to support Lucy Connolly, but want Ricky Jones arrested for his slitting the throat comment, they are most definitely hypocrites. Given the track record of politicians on freedom of speech, I totally expect Reform politicians to be hypocrites. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes I do. I also condemn Blair for passing laws which have resulted in about 30 arrests a day for social media posts and blasphemy laws. My problem is with people who pretend to be freedom of speech proponents and then do mental gymnastics to support Blair's laws and people getting arrested over burning a book. So you'll see then that Reform, by promoting Connolly as a political prisoner and the clearest example of the establishment's attack on free speech, is in fact causing great damage to the cause you care about. Because rather than presenting real evidence (to what you think is the high standard of the US First Amendment) they are instead glorifying criminality and making a mockery of all the right-wing talk about free speech being under attack. " Presumably Connolly will go on to join that long line of “criminals” who have gone on to be political leaders: Mandela Nehru Havel Kim Dae-jung Aung San Suu Kyi Anwar Ibrahim Lee Teng-hui Tokyo Sexwale | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cool, about Reform's actions with Lucy Connolly: I am pro freedom of speech. But I am not a freedom of speech "absolutist". I believe that the first amendment strikes a good balance between protecting freedom of speech and stopping physical harm. It is also much less ambiguous compared to UK's laws and multiple times better than the ECHR. So I personally don't agree with what Reform did with Lucy Connolly.She made a direct call for violence and got arrested. To judge Reform's attitude towards free speech, I need to know their take on it. Are they absolutists? If they are, then supporting Lucy Connolly is consistent with their views. If not, they have to explain where they draw the line. If they are going to support Lucy Connolly, but want Ricky Jones arrested for his slitting the throat comment, they are most definitely hypocrites. Given the track record of politicians on freedom of speech, I totally expect Reform politicians to be hypocrites." Concerns about things like freedom of speech, DEI, transgender issues and immigration are just tools used by right-wing populist authoritarians to manipulate public opinion and mask their real goal which is to amass as much power and wealth as possible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cool, about Reform's actions with Lucy Connolly: I am pro freedom of speech. But I am not a freedom of speech "absolutist". I believe that the first amendment strikes a good balance between protecting freedom of speech and stopping physical harm. It is also much less ambiguous compared to UK's laws and multiple times better than the ECHR. So I personally don't agree with what Reform did with Lucy Connolly.She made a direct call for violence and got arrested. To judge Reform's attitude towards free speech, I need to know their take on it. Are they absolutists? If they are, then supporting Lucy Connolly is consistent with their views. If not, they have to explain where they draw the line. If they are going to support Lucy Connolly, but want Ricky Jones arrested for his slitting the throat comment, they are most definitely hypocrites. Given the track record of politicians on freedom of speech, I totally expect Reform politicians to be hypocrites. Concerns about things like freedom of speech, DEI, transgender issues and immigration are just tools used by right-wing populist authoritarians to manipulate public opinion and mask their real goal which is to amass as much power and wealth as possible. " Same as left wing politicians. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Same as left wing politicians." Which left-wing politicians are stoking up fear about freedom of speech, DEI, transgender issues and immigration? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Same as left wing politicians. Which left-wing politicians are stoking up fear about freedom of speech, DEI, transgender issues and immigration?" They use different issues to do the same. Pretending to fight against racism, sexism or whatever is the latest trending ism. Politicians are generally out there for power and they use different tactics to get to power. One must be naive to think that their own side alone has politicians who are driven by principles. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They use different issues to do the same. Pretending to fight against racism, sexism or whatever is the latest trending ism. Politicians are generally out there for power and they use different tactics to get to power. One must be naive to think that their own side alone has politicians who are driven by principles." I think there are principled politicians on both the left and right but I agree there are also some on all parts of the political spectrum who are driven by lust for power and wealth. It's not something unique to the right. The critical difference between left and right populism is that one side champions goals like equal opportunities and societal respect regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, age or background and the other seeks to blame the problems of the "common man" on either the differences between people or on efforts by the left to provide equal opportunites and respect. The underlying motives of the power hungry may be similarly selfish but the outward effects of one versus the other are quite different | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think there are principled politicians on both the left and right but I agree there are also some on all parts of the political spectrum who are driven by lust for power and wealth. It's not something unique to the right. The critical difference between left and right populism is that one side champions goals like equal opportunities and societal respect regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, age or background and the other seeks to blame the problems of the "common man" on either the differences between people or on efforts by the left to provide equal opportunites and respect. " That's a really convenient way to define the left and right just to make the left being morally superior, isn't it? How about a different interpretation: The critical difference between left and right populism is that one side champions goals like Safety, security, hard work, stable families and physical well being and the other seeks to blame the problems of the society on either the successful people or the "oppressors" according to their oppression hierarchy. " The underlying motives of the power hungry may be similarly selfish but the outward effects of one versus the other are quite different" Morality is relative. Different people have different moral values and care about different things. In your eyes, left wing philosophy might look morally superior. From a right winger's perspective, their own moral values will look superior. Politicians just try to take advantage of this. Marxist communism has been as bad as fascism. The communists pretending like "we meant good, communism was never implemented properly" is just a lame excuse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's a really convenient way to define the left and right just to make the left being morally superior, isn't it? How about a different interpretation: The critical difference between left and right populism is that one side champions goals like Safety, security, hard work, stable families and physical well being and the other seeks to blame the problems of the society on either the successful people or the "oppressors" according to their oppression hierarchy." I can't think of any left-winger who is against safety, security, hard work, stable families and physical well being. The notion that the left are against successful (ie weathy people) is mistaken. The goal is to give everyone equal opportunities but in a society where some people are fabulously wealthy and some are dirt poor there is an effort to tax wealthy people in order to create opportunities for poor people. So we have ideas like progressive income tax where people pay a higher rate once they are above a comfortable income threshold. Similarly there is a problem with inherited weatlh as the more money one has the easier it is to make more and over multiple generations without some form of inheritance taxation wealth becomes increasingly based on accidents of birth. This is how aristocracy forms. So there's a balancing act where we want to ensure a minimum quality of life for the masses while still allowing the modern aristocracy to do well. "Morality is relative. Different people have different moral values and care about different things. In your eyes, left wing philosophy might look morally superior. From a right winger's perspective, their own moral values will look superior. Politicians just try to take advantage of this." I could go into evolutionary theory on empathy distribution patterns but I'll save that for another time. "Marxist communism has been as bad as fascism. The communists pretending like "we meant good, communism was never implemented properly" is just a lame excuse." This is what Animal Farm is about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I can't think of any left-winger who is against safety, security, hard work, stable families and physical well being. " I can't think of right wingers who are against equal opportunities either. It's the methods to achieve it and trying to get equality in outcome that many are against. But if you choose to take an extreme definition of right wing, I can also choose to take the extreme definition of left wing. " The notion that the left are against successful (ie weathy people) is mistaken. The goal is to give everyone equal opportunities but in a society where some people are fabulously wealthy and some are dirt poor there is an effort to tax wealthy people in order to create opportunities for poor people. So we have ideas like progressive income tax where people pay a higher rate once they are above a comfortable income threshold. " You are doing the same thing again. Interpreting left wing policies in a conveniently favourable way. I can interpret it as you punishing people who are successful by not just collecting more tax in absolute numbers but even more tax in percentages in the name of progressive taxation. That's probably because the left are driven by envy and hatred towards successful people - I have legit seen left wingers shout "eat the rich" and "kill the rich". " Similarly there is a problem with inherited weatlh as the more money one has the easier it is to make more and over multiple generations without some form of inheritance taxation wealth becomes increasingly based on accidents of birth. This is how aristocracy forms. " Again, I could interpret it as the left being against people who love their children so much and express their love by doing hard work and earning as much wealth as possible to make their lives comfortable. So the left is against families. " I could go into evolutionary theory on empathy distribution patterns but I'll save that for another time. " You are probably assuming that empathy is a more important moral value, which itself is just your own moral framework. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, I could interpret it as the left being against people who love their children so much and express their love by doing hard work and earning as much wealth as possible to make their lives comfortable. So the left is against families." Your argument is what I meant when I talked about the right blaming some of the problems of the "common man" on efforts by the left to provide equal opportunites and respect. Most on the right argue for rich people to become ever richer while simultaneously claiming that this is in the interests of the "common man". This argument works on many poor right-wingers because they believe against all odds that one day they'll become rich. "You are probably assuming that empathy is a more important moral value, which itself is just your own moral framework." No, it's about why evolutionary forces enable left and right to coexist because neither pattern of empathy distribution provides a better chance of reproductive success in all environments. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's desperate for attention and would sensibly be ignored. He didn't seem to add anything positive for the US government, apart from funding $millions for Trump . The fewer people like these and Robinson around, the better!
“The fewer people like these and Robinson around, the better!”.
What does this mean? What are you proposing to do so they are “no longer around”?"I'm not in the slightest engaging with them and the less that people like them get attention, the better. Any violence, etc is abhorrent. These people live for attention and power - we shouldn't give them any. The world is a better place without hatemongers driving unrest. It's simple | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Your argument is what I meant when I talked about the right blaming some of the problems of the "common man" on efforts by the left to provide equal opportunites and respect. Most on the right argue for rich people to become ever richer while simultaneously claiming that this is in the interests of the "common man". " And your argument is what I meant when I say the left blames all the problems on rich people and taking money away from them is the solution. " This argument works on many poor right-wingers because they believe against all odds that one day they'll become rich. " There are numerous rags to riches story. It's not particularly wrong for them to believe it. But that's not my point. Your view that left wing political views are morally superior in absolute terms is wrong and based on you conveniently defining left wing and right wing values in a biased way to make left wing moral views look better. " No, it's about why evolutionary forces enable left and right to coexist because neither pattern of empathy distribution provides a better chance of reproductive success in all environments. " In that case you are assuming that reproductive success is good. End of the day, you are making an axiomatic assumption that something is morally good. You have to start somewhere. There is no rational basis to it. Both Dostoevsky and Nietzsche were spot on with their commentary on moral philosophy and their predictions on what would happen with the death of God. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's desperate for attention and would sensibly be ignored. He didn't seem to add anything positive for the US government, apart from funding $millions for Trump . The fewer people like these and Robinson around, the better!
“The fewer people like these and Robinson around, the better!”.
What does this mean? What are you proposing to do so they are “no longer around”?
I took it to be a turn of phrase. Nothing more. No one is advocating anything to harm anyone.
Given the events in the USA over the past few days I would hope we are all focussed on dampening down reactions and poor phrasings.
How do you know the person isn’t advocating violence? Do you know them?
I agree totally that people should calm the language down. Hence why I raised it. I suggest people consider their use of language carefully in the current climate. And be realistic as to what the motives of others might be."I think it's better to accept explicit, literal meanings to be just that. Trying to infer anything else is too open to our own biases, that we're not free from. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting to see that for all the criticism at the highest level from various US politicians about the alleged lack of free speech in the UK what they are currently doing to anyone who has said anything negative about Charlie Kirk" The situation is pretty much what the Left has been telling us for years. People in the US are quite free to glorify Kirk’s murder. And their employers are free to end their employment. “Cancel culture doesn’t exist”. Fascinating to see the odious little scumbag “Bob Vylan” frantically rowing back on his comments now the US has cancelled his entry visa. Amazing how the Left’s “principles” rapidly disappear when they start hitting their wallets. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fascinating to see the odious little scumbag “Bob Vylan” frantically rowing back on his comments now the US has cancelled his entry visa. Amazing how the Left’s “principles” rapidly disappear when they start hitting their wallets." If you're going to criticise people, at least learn who they are before doing so. Bob Vylan is a band, not an individual. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So speaking as someone who was at the counter protest As a bunch of us were leaving (our march finished around 4 so people started leaving around 3ish) a very VERY large ground of people from the other protest decided to trap the counter protest in whitehall by blocking all the roads adjacant/breaking into the sterile area meant to seperate the two protests. That's why the violence against the police happened. The protesters were pushing through and attacking/harassing people attempting to leave. When they to told to move back to let us go they started attacking. Open threats of violence and warfare on the streets of London against people who were peacefully counter protesting. This is what they're turning this country into " Awww bless were your feeling hurt buttercup? Or did you get aroused by all the men pushing ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So speaking as someone who was at the counter protest As a bunch of us were leaving (our march finished around 4 so people started leaving around 3ish) a very VERY large ground of people from the other protest decided to trap the counter protest in whitehall by blocking all the roads adjacant/breaking into the sterile area meant to seperate the two protests. That's why the violence against the police happened. The protesters were pushing through and attacking/harassing people attempting to leave. When they to told to move back to let us go they started attacking. Open threats of violence and warfare on the streets of London against people who were peacefully counter protesting. This is what they're turning this country into Awww bless were your feeling hurt buttercup? Or did you get aroused by all the men pushing ?" I think the point is, that one group achieved their aim of a peaceful protest, but the other group didn't. It's quite a lazy argument to suggest feelings were hurt and suchlike. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So speaking as someone who was at the counter protest As a bunch of us were leaving (our march finished around 4 so people started leaving around 3ish) a very VERY large ground of people from the other protest decided to trap the counter protest in whitehall by blocking all the roads adjacant/breaking into the sterile area meant to seperate the two protests. That's why the violence against the police happened. The protesters were pushing through and attacking/harassing people attempting to leave. When they to told to move back to let us go they started attacking. Open threats of violence and warfare on the streets of London against people who were peacefully counter protesting. This is what they're turning this country into Awww bless were your feeling hurt buttercup? Or did you get aroused by all the men pushing ? I think the point is, that one group achieved their aim of a peaceful protest, but the other group didn't. It's quite a lazy argument to suggest feelings were hurt and suchlike. Yes you had the loony left Diane Abbot calling the Unite crowd racist and fascists. When Abbots being suspended twice for her racist remarks by her own party. . Couldn’t make it up. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both Dostoevsky and Nietzsche were spot on with their commentary on moral philosophy and their predictions on what would happen with the death of God." That explains a lot about your worldview. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fascinating to see the odious little scumbag “Bob Vylan” frantically rowing back on his comments now the US has cancelled his entry visa. Amazing how the Left’s “principles” rapidly disappear when they start hitting their wallets. If you're going to criticise people, at least learn who they are before doing so. Bob Vylan is a band, not an individual." I’m perfectly aware that it’s a band thanks. Hence why I put the name in inverted commas. But a very useful point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So speaking as someone who was at the counter protest As a bunch of us were leaving (our march finished around 4 so people started leaving around 3ish) a very VERY large ground of people from the other protest decided to trap the counter protest in whitehall by blocking all the roads adjacant/breaking into the sterile area meant to seperate the two protests. That's why the violence against the police happened. The protesters were pushing through and attacking/harassing people attempting to leave. When they to told to move back to let us go they started attacking. Open threats of violence and warfare on the streets of London against people who were peacefully counter protesting. This is what they're turning this country into " That’s your interpretation of what happened. But are you really sure people at the rally deliberately set out to “trap” you? That would have required serious planning, knowing exactly where the counter protest was at every moment, the numbers involved, and positioning themselves in the right place in the crowd. From the footage I’ve seen, what looks more likely is that the sheer numbers at the rally overwhelmed both the space and the police. Once the police at the back started pushing the crowd to prevent them leaving the area, people started pushing back, many others then tried to leave the designated route, it turned chaotic. That’s when the two groups ended up in close proximity. At that point, neither side looked like angels... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both Dostoevsky and Nietzsche were spot on with their commentary on moral philosophy and their predictions on what would happen with the death of God. That explains a lot about your worldview." What does it explain? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it explain?" That you seem to be looking at the world through an existentialist lens. Or more accurately from a 19th century philosophical viewpoint that was later categorized as existentialist. It might explain your focus and criticism of moral judgments and also why you misunderstood my point about evolution as being something to do with moral superiority rather than merely a theory about why certain traits might exist in the population. It might also explain why your posts often seem to be pessimistic about the state of the UK as angst (and later the concept of existential crisis) seemed to be the main emotion driving people like Nietzsche. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does it explain? That you seem to be looking at the world through an existentialist lens. Or more accurately from a 19th century philosophical viewpoint that was later categorized as existentialist. It might explain your focus and criticism of moral judgments and also why you misunderstood my point about evolution as being something to do with moral superiority rather than merely a theory about why certain traits might exist in the population. It might also explain why your posts often seem to be pessimistic about the state of the UK as angst (and later the concept of existential crisis) seemed to be the main emotion driving people like Nietzsche." That's partly true. Yes, I do look at the world through an existential lens. But that's not limited to the 19th century view. Existentialists of the twentieth century or even today haven't digressed much from the 19th century views. My criticism of your point about evolution isn't based on moral superiority. Science tells you what is. It doesn't tell you what ought to. Science doesn't give you morals. There is an interesting "is" Vs "ought to" debate between Sean Carroll(a physicist) and Sam Harris, which for some reason has been removed from YouTube. But you can still see Sean Carroll touching upon this in his blogs. And no, angst isn't the driving emotion behind Nietzsche's or Dostoevsky's writings. Nietzsche's writings are mostly positive. Dostoevsky was even a socialist in his younger days. But after spending some time with the socialist circles, it didn't take long for him so see the problems with the ideology and become a vocal critic in his writings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So speaking as someone who was at the counter protest As a bunch of us were leaving (our march finished around 4 so people started leaving around 3ish) a very VERY large ground of people from the other protest decided to trap the counter protest in whitehall by blocking all the roads adjacant/breaking into the sterile area meant to seperate the two protests. That's why the violence against the police happened. The protesters were pushing through and attacking/harassing people attempting to leave. When they to told to move back to let us go they started attacking. Open threats of violence and warfare on the streets of London against people who were peacefully counter protesting. This is what they're turning this country into That’s your interpretation of what happened. But are you really sure people at the rally deliberately set out to “trap” you? That would have required serious planning, knowing exactly where the counter protest was at every moment, the numbers involved, and positioning themselves in the right place in the crowd. From the footage I’ve seen, what looks more likely is that the sheer numbers at the rally overwhelmed both the space and the police. Once the police at the back started pushing the crowd to prevent them leaving the area, people started pushing back, many others then tried to leave the designated route, it turned chaotic. That’s when the two groups ended up in close proximity. At that point, neither side looked like angels... " There was a plan released by the Met prior to the event, so both groups would have known where the other one was. Met police has also shared a map of where the disorder took place - follow the red lines to the stars. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So speaking as someone who was at the counter protest As a bunch of us were leaving (our march finished around 4 so people started leaving around 3ish) a very VERY large ground of people from the other protest decided to trap the counter protest in whitehall by blocking all the roads adjacant/breaking into the sterile area meant to seperate the two protests. That's why the violence against the police happened. The protesters were pushing through and attacking/harassing people attempting to leave. When they to told to move back to let us go they started attacking. Open threats of violence and warfare on the streets of London against people who were peacefully counter protesting. This is what they're turning this country into That’s your interpretation of what happened. But are you really sure people at the rally deliberately set out to “trap” you? That would have required serious planning, knowing exactly where the counter protest was at every moment, the numbers involved, and positioning themselves in the right place in the crowd. From the footage I’ve seen, what looks more likely is that the sheer numbers at the rally overwhelmed both the space and the police. Once the police at the back started pushing the crowd to prevent them leaving the area, people started pushing back, many others then tried to leave the designated route, it turned chaotic. That’s when the two groups ended up in close proximity. At that point, neither side looked like angels... There was a plan released by the Met prior to the event, so both groups would have known where the other one was. Met police has also shared a map of where the disorder took place - follow the red lines to the stars. " . If you just took 10 minutes to look into the detail a little deeper, you might see how vast numbers of people that exceeded the expected crowd size bottlenecked and it all spilled over. There was no organised attack, it became chaotic and when the 2 groups met they were as bad as each other. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So speaking as someone who was at the counter protest As a bunch of us were leaving (our march finished around 4 so people started leaving around 3ish) a very VERY large ground of people from the other protest decided to trap the counter protest in whitehall by blocking all the roads adjacant/breaking into the sterile area meant to seperate the two protests. That's why the violence against the police happened. The protesters were pushing through and attacking/harassing people attempting to leave. When they to told to move back to let us go they started attacking. Open threats of violence and warfare on the streets of London against people who were peacefully counter protesting. This is what they're turning this country into That’s your interpretation of what happened. But are you really sure people at the rally deliberately set out to “trap” you? That would have required serious planning, knowing exactly where the counter protest was at every moment, the numbers involved, and positioning themselves in the right place in the crowd. From the footage I’ve seen, what looks more likely is that the sheer numbers at the rally overwhelmed both the space and the police. Once the police at the back started pushing the crowd to prevent them leaving the area, people started pushing back, many others then tried to leave the designated route, it turned chaotic. That’s when the two groups ended up in close proximity. At that point, neither side looked like angels... There was a plan released by the Met prior to the event, so both groups would have known where the other one was. Met police has also shared a map of where the disorder took place - follow the red lines to the stars. . If you just took 10 minutes to look into the detail a little deeper, you might see how vast numbers of people that exceeded the expected crowd size bottlenecked and it all spilled over. There was no organised attack, it became chaotic and when the 2 groups met they were as bad as each other. " The Unite the Kingdom protest had "exceeded the estimates of organisers", the force said, which meant there was not enough space for them all in Whitehall and Parliament Square. Large crowds ignored police directions and tried to get into secure areas and spots occupied by those participating in the Stand Up To Racism protest. "When officers intervened to block their path they were assaulted with kicks and punches," the Met said, adding that riot police, horses and dogs were used to keep the opposing groups apart. _____ Doesn't sound as though the Stand up to Racism lot were trying to get anywhere near the Unite the Kingdom group. Sheer numbers was a factor, granted, but the people who tried to breach the sterile areas, had been forewarned of where they could and could not go, and they were the ones who resorted to the majority of the violence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So speaking as someone who was at the counter protest As a bunch of us were leaving (our march finished around 4 so people started leaving around 3ish) a very VERY large ground of people from the other protest decided to trap the counter protest in whitehall by blocking all the roads adjacant/breaking into the sterile area meant to seperate the two protests. That's why the violence against the police happened. The protesters were pushing through and attacking/harassing people attempting to leave. When they to told to move back to let us go they started attacking. Open threats of violence and warfare on the streets of London against people who were peacefully counter protesting. This is what they're turning this country into That’s your interpretation of what happened. But are you really sure people at the rally deliberately set out to “trap” you? That would have required serious planning, knowing exactly where the counter protest was at every moment, the numbers involved, and positioning themselves in the right place in the crowd. From the footage I’ve seen, what looks more likely is that the sheer numbers at the rally overwhelmed both the space and the police. Once the police at the back started pushing the crowd to prevent them leaving the area, people started pushing back, many others then tried to leave the designated route, it turned chaotic. That’s when the two groups ended up in close proximity. At that point, neither side looked like angels... There was a plan released by the Met prior to the event, so both groups would have known where the other one was. Met police has also shared a map of where the disorder took place - follow the red lines to the stars. . If you just took 10 minutes to look into the detail a little deeper, you might see how vast numbers of people that exceeded the expected crowd size bottlenecked and it all spilled over. There was no organised attack, it became chaotic and when the 2 groups met they were as bad as each other. The Unite the Kingdom protest had "exceeded the estimates of organisers", the force said, which meant there was not enough space for them all in Whitehall and Parliament Square. Large crowds ignored police directions and tried to get into secure areas and spots occupied by those participating in the Stand Up To Racism protest. "When officers intervened to block their path they were assaulted with kicks and punches," the Met said, adding that riot police, horses and dogs were used to keep the opposing groups apart. _____ Doesn't sound as though the Stand up to Racism lot were trying to get anywhere near the Unite the Kingdom group. Sheer numbers was a factor, granted, but the people who tried to breach the sterile areas, had been forewarned of where they could and could not go, and they were the ones who resorted to the majority of the violence." You can see it for yourself in the video footage, the whole thing overspilled and bottlenecked. The police didn’t help by pushing people back into the same mass they were trying to escape, and that’s when it turned ugly. Once the two groups came together, they mirrored each other’s behaviour. The idea that people were just ignoring directions is a stretch, those at the back were being pushed from the front and the rear, and just wanted out. The police kept forcing them back instead of letting them disperse, which they couldn't manage due to the sheer numbers that blocked off all roads. At the end of the day, this was very poor planning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So speaking as someone who was at the counter protest As a bunch of us were leaving (our march finished around 4 so people started leaving around 3ish) a very VERY large ground of people from the other protest decided to trap the counter protest in whitehall by blocking all the roads adjacant/breaking into the sterile area meant to seperate the two protests. That's why the violence against the police happened. The protesters were pushing through and attacking/harassing people attempting to leave. When they to told to move back to let us go they started attacking. Open threats of violence and warfare on the streets of London against people who were peacefully counter protesting. This is what they're turning this country into That’s your interpretation of what happened. But are you really sure people at the rally deliberately set out to “trap” you? That would have required serious planning, knowing exactly where the counter protest was at every moment, the numbers involved, and positioning themselves in the right place in the crowd. From the footage I’ve seen, what looks more likely is that the sheer numbers at the rally overwhelmed both the space and the police. Once the police at the back started pushing the crowd to prevent them leaving the area, people started pushing back, many others then tried to leave the designated route, it turned chaotic. That’s when the two groups ended up in close proximity. At that point, neither side looked like angels... There was a plan released by the Met prior to the event, so both groups would have known where the other one was. Met police has also shared a map of where the disorder took place - follow the red lines to the stars. . If you just took 10 minutes to look into the detail a little deeper, you might see how vast numbers of people that exceeded the expected crowd size bottlenecked and it all spilled over. There was no organised attack, it became chaotic and when the 2 groups met they were as bad as each other. The Unite the Kingdom protest had "exceeded the estimates of organisers", the force said, which meant there was not enough space for them all in Whitehall and Parliament Square. Large crowds ignored police directions and tried to get into secure areas and spots occupied by those participating in the Stand Up To Racism protest. "When officers intervened to block their path they were assaulted with kicks and punches," the Met said, adding that riot police, horses and dogs were used to keep the opposing groups apart. _____ Doesn't sound as though the Stand up to Racism lot were trying to get anywhere near the Unite the Kingdom group. Sheer numbers was a factor, granted, but the people who tried to breach the sterile areas, had been forewarned of where they could and could not go, and they were the ones who resorted to the majority of the violence. You can see it for yourself in the video footage, the whole thing overspilled and bottlenecked. The police didn’t help by pushing people back into the same mass they were trying to escape, and that’s when it turned ugly. Once the two groups came together, they mirrored each other’s behaviour. The idea that people were just ignoring directions is a stretch, those at the back were being pushed from the front and the rear, and just wanted out. The police kept forcing them back instead of letting them disperse, which they couldn't manage due to the sheer numbers that blocked off all roads. At the end of the day, this was very poor planning. " In your opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So speaking as someone who was at the counter protest As a bunch of us were leaving (our march finished around 4 so people started leaving around 3ish) a very VERY large ground of people from the other protest decided to trap the counter protest in whitehall by blocking all the roads adjacant/breaking into the sterile area meant to seperate the two protests. That's why the violence against the police happened. The protesters were pushing through and attacking/harassing people attempting to leave. When they to told to move back to let us go they started attacking. Open threats of violence and warfare on the streets of London against people who were peacefully counter protesting. This is what they're turning this country into That’s your interpretation of what happened. But are you really sure people at the rally deliberately set out to “trap” you? That would have required serious planning, knowing exactly where the counter protest was at every moment, the numbers involved, and positioning themselves in the right place in the crowd. From the footage I’ve seen, what looks more likely is that the sheer numbers at the rally overwhelmed both the space and the police. Once the police at the back started pushing the crowd to prevent them leaving the area, people started pushing back, many others then tried to leave the designated route, it turned chaotic. That’s when the two groups ended up in close proximity. At that point, neither side looked like angels... There was a plan released by the Met prior to the event, so both groups would have known where the other one was. Met police has also shared a map of where the disorder took place - follow the red lines to the stars. . If you just took 10 minutes to look into the detail a little deeper, you might see how vast numbers of people that exceeded the expected crowd size bottlenecked and it all spilled over. There was no organised attack, it became chaotic and when the 2 groups met they were as bad as each other. The Unite the Kingdom protest had "exceeded the estimates of organisers", the force said, which meant there was not enough space for them all in Whitehall and Parliament Square. Large crowds ignored police directions and tried to get into secure areas and spots occupied by those participating in the Stand Up To Racism protest. "When officers intervened to block their path they were assaulted with kicks and punches," the Met said, adding that riot police, horses and dogs were used to keep the opposing groups apart. _____ Doesn't sound as though the Stand up to Racism lot were trying to get anywhere near the Unite the Kingdom group. Sheer numbers was a factor, granted, but the people who tried to breach the sterile areas, had been forewarned of where they could and could not go, and they were the ones who resorted to the majority of the violence. You can see it for yourself in the video footage, the whole thing overspilled and bottlenecked. The police didn’t help by pushing people back into the same mass they were trying to escape, and that’s when it turned ugly. Once the two groups came together, they mirrored each other’s behaviour. The idea that people were just ignoring directions is a stretch, those at the back were being pushed from the front and the rear, and just wanted out. The police kept forcing them back instead of letting them disperse, which they couldn't manage due to the sheer numbers that blocked off all roads. At the end of the day, this was very poor planning. In your opinion. "I have one that wasn't provided by headlines and bias. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Number of people arrested at the Unite the Kingdom march: 25 Number of people arrested at the Notting Hill Carnival 2025: 528 Number of “pro-Palestine” protesters arrested so far in 2025: 1800" Average number of weekly arrests at UK football matches 40-55. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So speaking as someone who was at the counter protest As a bunch of us were leaving (our march finished around 4 so people started leaving around 3ish) a very VERY large ground of people from the other protest decided to trap the counter protest in whitehall by blocking all the roads adjacant/breaking into the sterile area meant to seperate the two protests. That's why the violence against the police happened. The protesters were pushing through and attacking/harassing people attempting to leave. When they to told to move back to let us go they started attacking. Open threats of violence and warfare on the streets of London against people who were peacefully counter protesting. This is what they're turning this country into That’s your interpretation of what happened. But are you really sure people at the rally deliberately set out to “trap” you? That would have required serious planning, knowing exactly where the counter protest was at every moment, the numbers involved, and positioning themselves in the right place in the crowd. From the footage I’ve seen, what looks more likely is that the sheer numbers at the rally overwhelmed both the space and the police. Once the police at the back started pushing the crowd to prevent them leaving the area, people started pushing back, many others then tried to leave the designated route, it turned chaotic. That’s when the two groups ended up in close proximity. At that point, neither side looked like angels... " Every exit was blocked by protesters. It wasn't people trying to leave as the roads they were blocking headed towards Whitehall where Tommy robinson was. The counter protest never sought out to attack the other protest. It was direct violent provocation for free speech. If you're defeding that well that says a lot about your opinions on free speech... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For me existentialism is a muddled philosopy that contains inherent contradictions. Fundamentally because of its criticism of rationality and metaphysics using, guess what, reasoning and metaphysics. " Existentialists don't criticise rationalism totally. They use logical reasoning to point out that every "truth" we ever believe is based axiomatic assumptions and are filled with contradictions. I don't think they use metaphysics either. " It's essentially based on the notion that reality is all inside the head and people struggle with the apparent meaninglessness of life. " The second part is true. Existentialism grapples with nihilism and asks people to find a way out of nihilism. But it is not based on the notion that reality is all inside the head. That would be idealism. Existentialism just states that we can't say for sure. " I'm not saying it's complete bollocks but In my experience those fascinated by Nietzsche are pretty unhappy people with a vague but strong sense of unease or apprehension about existence and personal freedom. " Those are people who have never read Nietzsche and are going by quotes taken out of context. They tend to confuse nihilism with existentialism. If anything, reading Zarathustra made me happier. His writings on how to embrace life in spite of pain, suffering and its lack of inherent meaning are easily levels above every self-help book you see today. " I don't think Nietzsche was very political and his ideas have been adopted by some across the political spectrum but historically they were unfortunately bent to support extreme nationalism - starting with Nietzsche's sister. " Yes, his sister edited his writings to suit the Nazi agenda. But if you read his writings, you will see that he criticises anti-Semitism and actually has lots of respect for the Jews. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a side note, IF the main protesters weren't actively seeking to attack the counter protesters, they were still trying to break into an area that would have been dangerous to be in due to the crowd numbers. Ultimately making it less safe for the people who came to be peaceful. There were plenty of options to leave if they wanted to leave " No there wasn't you said yourself that all the roads were blocked and it was chaos. It was poor planning and too many people in one place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For me existentialism is a muddled philosopy that contains inherent contradictions. Fundamentally because of its criticism of rationality and metaphysics using, guess what, reasoning and metaphysics. It's essentially based on the notion that reality is all inside the head and people struggle with the apparent meaninglessness of life. It doesn't say anything profound or particularly useful. I'm not saying it's complete bollocks but In my experience those fascinated by Nietzsche are pretty unhappy people with a vague but strong sense of unease or apprehension about existence and personal freedom. I don't think Nietzsche was very political and his ideas have been adopted by some across the political spectrum but historically they were unfortunately bent to support extreme nationalism - starting with Nietzsche's sister. " How many Existentialist does it take to change a lightbulb? Two One to screw the bulb in, the other to observe how the bulb symbolises a single incandescent beacon of subjective reality in a netherworld of endless absurdity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Existentialists don't criticise rationalism totally. They use logical reasoning to point out that every "truth" we ever believe is based axiomatic assumptions and are filled with contradictions. I don't think they use metaphysics either." As I understand it existentialism is opposed to any concept of the primacy of essence (hence Jean-Paul Sartre "existence precedes essence") yet logical reasoning is fundamentally about essense. So they use something they oppose in order to try and make their point. As for metaphysics, existentialism is in itself a form of metaphysics. I have a theory that existentialists were really crap at mathematics at school and their poetic ideas are an over-reaction to this. I'm only half-joking here. "The second part is true. Existentialism grapples with nihilism and asks people to find a way out of nihilism. But it is not based on the notion that reality is all inside the head. That would be idealism. Existentialism just states that we can't say for sure." Again, in my limited understanding , existentialism is a reaction against what its proponents found to be a problem with their atheism - they thought that without god(s) nihilism was kind of inevitable so they had to come up with other ideas to fill "the gap". I'm not saying the existentialism is as dumb as Berkeley's idea of immaterialism but it's still a form of idealism. Same with its offshoots post-modernism and post-structuralism. I'm also not saying that these ideas are completely invalid. Every school of philosophy has a mix of good ideas and total bollocks. "Those are people who have never read Nietzsche and are going by quotes taken out of context. They tend to confuse nihilism with existentialism. If anything, reading Zarathustra made me happier. His writings on how to embrace life in spite of pain, suffering and its lack of inherent meaning are easily levels above every self-help book you see today." You are probably right on the first point. However, on the second point, from your posts you don't exactly come across as a chirpy chappy. "Yes, his sister edited his writings to suit the Nazi agenda. But if you read his writings, you will see that he criticises anti-Semitism and actually has lots of respect for the Jews." His sister was a nasty piece of work. And I agree Friedrich Nietzsche was not at all anti-semitic nor even a nationalist. He seems to have been a fairly nice guy who had a pretty shitty life battling illness and unrequited love. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As I understand it existentialism is opposed to any concept of the primacy of essence (hence Jean-Paul Sartre "existence precedes essence") yet logical reasoning is fundamentally about essense. So they use something they oppose in order to try and make their point. " Yes, existentialism is based on the idea that existence predates essence. But no one ever says logical reasoning is fundamentally about essence. It just says that life doesn't inherently have a purpose or morals. We have to come up with them ourselves. " As for metaphysics, existentialism is in itself a form of metaphysics. " Admitting that we can't make claims about the metaphysical reality isn't metaphysics. It's an epistemological claim. " I have a theory that existentialists were really crap at mathematics at school and their poetic ideas are an over-reaction to this. I'm only half-joking here. " Some of them but not. As I mentioned above, science being unable to give us morals is something even many scientists admit to. " Again, in my limited understanding , existentialism is a reaction against what its proponents found to be a problem with their atheism - they thought that without god(s) nihilism was kind of inevitable so they had to come up with other ideas to fill "the gap". I'm not saying the existentialism is as dumb as Berkeley's idea of immaterialism but it's still a form of idealism. Same with its offshoots post-modernism and post-structuralism. " Idealism is about ontology. It says that your mind is the source of everything. Not sure how you can say existentialism is part of idealism. It's also funny you say this because most modern progressives hand pick and misuse some of the ideas of existentialists like moral relativism to make their case for multiculturalism and trans issues. " You are probably right on the first point. However, on the second point, from your posts you don't exactly come across as a chirpy chappy " If we are going by posts online, I can say the same about you too. Also, numerous studies say that left wingers typically have poorer mental wellbeing compared to right wingers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, existentialism is based on the idea that existence predates essence. But no one ever says logical reasoning is fundamentally about essence. It just says that life doesn't inherently have a purpose or morals. We have to come up with them ourselves." Ancient philosophy abounds with people saying that rationality is something that is about essence. It's a priori as opposed to a posteriori. IMO things like purpose or morals are higher level constructions that can't really be answered by logic or empiricism because they are too vague. We can only come up with heuristics about such things. "Admitting that we can't make claims about the metaphysical reality isn't metaphysics. It's an epistemological claim." Existentialism makes claims about things like knowledge, will, freedom and individuality. These are metaphysical concepts. "Some of them but not. As I mentioned above, science being unable to give us morals is something even many scientists admit to." I've never claimed that science has anything to say about morals. You keep bringing it up as a strawman. My point about mathematics is that it deals with abstract truths that are independent of the notion of existance. Mathematics seems to be a world beyond the grasp of most existentialist thinkers. "Idealism is about ontology. It says that your mind is the source of everything. Not sure how you can say existentialism is part of idealism. It's also funny you say this because most modern progressives hand pick and misuse some of the ideas of existentialists like moral relativism to make their case for multiculturalism and trans issues." Existentialism deals with concepts that are mental constructs. As such it isn't talking about materialism. It's dealing with with things that only exist in the mind, As such I see it as a branch of idealism. Although I'm not really trying to draw hard lines here as my personal philosophy is a tentative and heuristic mismash of lots of different ideas rather than a definitive or even coherent one. While progressivism borrows some of the language of existentialism such as experiential learning it emphasises things like critical thinking and value judgements on social reform rather than the subjectivism and ideas about individualism and freedom stressed by existentialism. That's why some people on the left think that existentialist ideas tend to be adopted more by the right than left. It comes back to your point about morals. The left tend to see things like the golden rule and taking care of the weak as valuable ideas in themselves without them having to be underpinned by any sophisticated philosophical framework. "If we are going by posts online, I can say the same about you too. Also, numerous studies say that left wingers typically have poorer mental wellbeing compared to right wingers." My point was partly in response to you saying that reading Zarathustra made you happier and the impression I get that you spend a great deal of time saying how shitty things are in the UK. Most of my posts are about trying to calm people down a bit and arguing that things aren't as bad as people think. Sometimes I do the opposite and point out dangers that I think are underestimated but this isn't from a position of being personally pessimistic. If you are a generally happy person them I'm glad. It's often difficult to see beyond the text in internet exchanges. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ancient philosophy abounds with people saying that rationality is something that is about essence. It's a priori as opposed to a posteriori. " "Ancient philosophy" is such a vast grouping. There are lots of nuances in these arguments. I haven't seen any existential philosopher making such a claim about rationality. " IMO things like purpose or morals are higher level constructions that can't really be answered by logic or empiricism because they are too vague. We can only come up with heuristics about such things. " That's mostly what existentialists claim too. Morals and purpose are human constructs. Nature doesn't give them to us. But instead of being nihilistic about it, we need to come up with our own morals. " Existentialism makes claims about things like knowledge, will, freedom and individuality. These are metaphysical concepts. " Existentialists claim that we can't make any realistic claims about any of these. Nietzsche for example says that there is neither free will nor unfree will because the concept of free will relies on the concept of self and we have no way to define the concept of self. It's not a claim about metaphysics. It's a claim about our knowledge of it which is very limited. " I've never claimed that science has anything to say about morals. You keep bringing it up as a strawman. My point about mathematics is that it deals with abstract truths that are independent of the notion of existance. Mathematics seems to be a world beyond the grasp of most existentialist thinkers. " My point was that many physicists who are obviously many times better at Maths than you and me agree to existentialism. It looks like you are just demonstrating the typical left wing mentality that people who don't agree with your views must be intellectually inferior. " Existentialism deals with concepts that are mental constructs. As such it isn't talking about materialism. It's dealing with with things that only exist in the mind, As such I see it as a branch of idealism. " It isn't a branch. You have misunderstood existentialism. For the record, I actually like idealism, not Berkeley's version though. Idealism and physicalism are both polar opposite claims about reality. Materialism says the physical world is real and your mind is a higher order phenomenon in the physical world. Idealism says the mind is real and the physical world is just like a dream. Existentialism claims you can't know either way. " Although I'm not really trying to draw hard lines here as my personal philosophy is a tentative and heuristic mismash of lots of different ideas rather than a definitive or even coherent one. " Me too. I use the existential lens only for moral philosophy. I do like science and enjoy reading about different philosophies of mind. " While progressivism borrows some of the language of existentialism such as experiential learning it emphasises things like critical thinking and value judgements on social reform rather than the subjectivism and ideas about individualism and freedom stressed by existentialism. That's why some people on the left think that existentialist ideas tend to be adopted more by the right than left. " The clowns who cancelled Richard Dawkins for questioning some of their views are critical thinkers? Next joke please. Progressives are the least scientifically inclined people I have ever seen. Their whole argument on the trans issues is about based on subjectivity. I have seen progressives (mis)use the concept of subjectivity more than right wingers. " It comes back to your point about morals. The left tend to see things like the golden rule and taking care of the weak as valuable ideas in themselves without them having to be underpinned by any sophisticated philosophical framework. " And I believe that they are frauds pretending to care about the weak. I have seen more right wingers actually doing something for the others than any left wingers who just whine about how the government is not helping others. In the US for example, it has been shown that the republican voters donate more for charity than the democratic voters, even adjusting for income. Asking the government to take money out of someone else's pockets to help others doesn't prove anything about how much you care for the weak. Talking about it online doesn't either. " My point was partly in response to you saying that reading Zarathustra made you happier and the impression I get that you spend a great deal of time saying how shitty things are in the UK. " And what were you doing when Tories were ruling? I even admitted that some things Starmer did were good. And this is all politics anyway. Life is much bigger than politics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Ancient philosophy" is such a vast grouping. There are lots of nuances in these arguments." Agreed, although Plato and Aristole are probably the most famous ancient proponents of essentialism. " I haven't seen any existential philosopher making such a claim about rationality." Obviously, as they consider that existence precedes essence. "That's mostly what existentialists claim too. Morals and purpose are human constructs. Nature doesn't give them to us. But instead of being nihilistic about it, we need to come up with our own morals." I think we have agreement on this. Although from my persepective as an atheist I don't see the lack of god(s) as leading to any kind of nihilism problem. "Existentialists claim that we can't make any realistic claims about any of these. Nietzsche for example says that there is neither free will nor unfree will because the concept of free will relies on the concept of self and we have no way to define the concept of self. It's not a claim about metaphysics. It's a claim about our knowledge of it which is very limited." OK so when boiled down one of the claims of existentialism seems to be that things like will, morals and purpose can't be discussed in any deep meaningful way. But to arrive at these kinds of conclusions one has to discuss what words like will, morals and purpose mean and this requires at least a glancing reference to metaphysics. As I said before I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that these things and things like intelligence and consciousness are extremely difficult to pin down. They are complex constructions or emergent properties that aren't at all well understood. But because these subjects are complex and ill-defined it doesn't mean they are forever beyond reasoning as existentialists appear to be claiming. "My point was that many physicists who are obviously many times better at Maths than you and me agree to existentialism." Apart from perhaps Sabine Hoffstader I can't think of any. But maybe you are right. Just like there are no doubt some evolutionary biologists who are creationists. "It looks like you are just demonstrating the typical left wing mentality that people who don't agree with your views must be intellectually inferior." No, someone not grasping mathematics doesn't make them intellectually inferior. They may simply not be interested in the subject or have immense skills in other areas where they make better use of their time. My point about maths is partly down to my own professional engagement in the area. I use applied mathematics - basic algebra, analytical geometry, digital signal processing algorithms and such like on a daily basis and when I am dealing with say a polynomial function I think of this as a purely abstract tool, even though I'm using it in real world context. So the "existence precedes essence" claim seems false to me. For someone working in pure mathematics I imagine they consider it meaningless drivel. "It isn't a branch. You have misunderstood existentialism. For the record, I actually like idealism, not Berkeley's version though. Idealism and physicalism are both polar opposite claims about reality. Materialism says the physical world is real and your mind is a higher order phenomenon in the physical world. Idealism says the mind is real and the physical world is just like a dream. Existentialism claims you can't know either way." Let's look at the circle. From an existentialist perspective circles presumably aren't pure abstract things, they must be derived from practical examples of imperfect circles in the real world if "existence precedes essence" is a true claim. Although I'm not actually at all sure what the existential position is on the cirlce as you seem to be implying that circles are neither ideal nor physical and it's imposisible to know what they are. To a mathematician the concept of the circle hasn't got anything to do with "being" it's an abstract "essence" that is at the core of dimensionality. "The clowns who cancelled Richard Dawkins for questioning some of their views are critical thinkers? Next joke please." Dawkins sometimes comes across as a school boy level debater. I'm not surprised some get annoyed by his pronouncements. "Progressives are the least scientifically inclined people I have ever seen. Their whole argument on the trans issues is about based on subjectivity. I have seen progressives (mis)use the concept of subjectivity more than right wingers. ... And I believe that they are frauds pretending to care about the weak. " Yawn. I think we all understand that you despise progressives/liberals/the left. "I have seen more right wingers actually doing something for the others than any left wingers who just whine about how the government is not helping others. In the US for example, it has been shown that the republican voters donate more for charity than the democratic voters, even adjusting for income." Such a statistic would only be knowable if people openly declare their generosity. "Asking the government to take money out of someone else's pockets to help others doesn't prove anything about how much you care for the weak. Talking about it online doesn't either." I suspect it's not really about the government taking money out of other people's pockets but about them taking money out of your pockets. What do you suggest? Ending taxation and relying on charity to prevent millions of people who depend on their state pensions from starving to death? Social care, the police, fire and rescue, the military etc relying on donations? As far as I know every country on Earth going back way into past has used taxation for redistribution of wealth. It's not some evil left-wing plot but an essential part of civilized society. "And what were you doing when Tories were ruling? I even admitted that some things Starmer did were good. And this is all politics anyway. Life is much bigger than politics." Pretty much the same as I'm doing now. There hasn't been any major change in UK politics in my lifetime. For instance even though Thatcher is massively overrated I still consider her to have been a regular centre-right politician who more or less had good intentions. But now we have people like Musk calling for violent revolution so I'll pop-up on threads like this to to say I think this is unusual and wrong-headed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But because these subjects are complex and ill-defined it doesn't mean they are forever beyond reasoning as existentialists appear to be claiming. " Unless something magical happens to how humans perceive the world, because of limitations to our ability to acquire knowledge , it's actually reasonable to claim that we will never be able to crack these things. Erwin Schrödinger is not an existentialist. He subscribes to the monist view of eastern philosophy, very close to idealism. He makes an argument in his essays on mind and matter about why science can never crack the hard problem of consciousness. " on a daily basis and when I am dealing with say a polynomial function I think of this as a purely abstract tool, even though I'm using it in real world context. So the "existence precedes essence" claim seems false to me. For someone working in pure mathematics I imagine they consider it meaningless drivel. " It means you either don't understand math or you don't understand Maths. You can use Maths and science in your day to day life while also admitting to its limitations. " Let's look at the circle. From an existentialist perspective circles presumably aren't pure abstract things, they must be derived from practical examples of imperfect circles in the real world if "existence precedes essence" is a true claim. Although I'm not actually at all sure what the existential position is on the cirlce as you seem to be implying that circles are neither ideal nor physical and it's imposisible to know what they are. " Existentialist position is that the terms physical and mental are themselves ill defined. Like Nietzsche claims the concept of self is not something you can define. Circles can be abstract things imagined by humans which give an useful approximation of the world we perceive in our lives. " Dawkins sometimes comes across as a school boy level debater. I'm not surprised some get annoyed by his pronouncements. " He asked some perfectly valid questions about religion, race and trans issues. The progressives who are scared of debating him cancelled him. You are claiming that those progressive clowns are critical thinkers but Richard Dawkins makes school boy debates? As I said, next joke please. " Such a statistic would only be knowable if people openly declare their generosity. " There is no reason why right wingers declare their generosity more than left wingers, especially when it's the left wingers who are loud with their moral posturing. Every country allows people to volunteer more tax. But the amount they receive through this system is laughable. The last time I checked, UK got about £1500 in a whole year. If the left really believes in taking care of the poor through government, they would put their money where their mouth is and the government coffers will be overflowing with money. The truth is they never cared. Dostoevsky understood it after spending some time with the socialists. He wrote what the socialists are all about even before USSR happened. " I suspect it's not really about the government taking money out of other people's pockets but about them taking money out of your pockets. What do you suggest? Ending taxation and relying on charity to prevent millions of people who depend on their state pensions from starving to death? " If state pensions did not exist in the first place, people wouldn't end up in a position where they rely on it. How is the state pension thing going now anyway? Very sustainable right? Not a Ponzi scheme at all. " Social care, the police, fire and rescue, the military etc relying on donations? " Police, fire and military are services people rely on. It's paying for a service. Not a donation. " As far as I know every country on Earth going back way into past has used taxation for redistribution of wealth. It's not some evil left-wing plot but an essential part of civilized society. " The goal was hardly to redistribute wealth. It was to provide infrastructure that everyone uses. " There hasn't been any major change in UK politics in my lifetime. For instance even though Thatcher is massively overrated I still consider her to have been a regular centre-right politician who more or less had good intentions. " And yet you were handpicking wrong statistics to portray her as a poor prime minister which clearly showed your bias against her. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Plenty of white Brits do not share these views. 110k turnout from 70 million population. Largely represented by over fed salad dodgers, who are they going to fight. 99% wouldn’t pass an infantry bft No, they are ‘patriots’ mate. ‘Patriots’ who assault the police & have little respect for law enforcement. Send them to Lympstone, they will be begging for the first train home. " Wentworth to Lympstone did that. Passed with flying colours and still supporter the rally. Don't listen to everything you see in the media, all utter bollox. The police provoked and started it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reading up a little more on the origins of the phrase "existence precedes essence" it seems that Satre later tried to distance himself from it. It seems that he wasn't originally using it in any universalist sense and was only talking about human nature... "In Existentialism Is a Humanism, Sartre says that since “man is nothing else but what he makes of himself” and since “there is no human nature since there is no God to conceive it”, existence must thus precede essence. This means that human beings define, decide, form, and determine themselves through their decisions, actions, thoughts, and choices whilst existing in the world, that is, human beings first exist in the world and then determine and choose themselves." The original idea seems to have come from Schelling via Kierkegaard and Heidegger. And "Heidegger implied that Sartre misunderstood him for his own purposes of subjectivism, and that he did not mean that actions take precedence over being so long as those actions were not reflected upon. Heidegger commented that "the reversal of a metaphysical statement remains a metaphysical statement", meaning that he thought Sartre had simply switched the roles traditionally attributed to essence and existence without interrogating these concepts and their history." " Huh?🤷 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
