Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Minding Our Manners – politicalbetting.com

245678

Comments

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,932
    kle4 said:

    Ah, excellent, my copy of The Satanic Verses has just arrived in the post. I've heard it isn't actually very good, but we shall see.

    I am constantly reminded these past few days of the joke at the time of The Satanic Verses that Rushdie's follow up was going to be called "Buddha is a Big Fat Bastard". :)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,131
    kle4 said:

    Ah, excellent, my copy of The Satanic Verses has just arrived in the post. I've heard it isn't actually very good, but we shall see.

    If it's as bad as the one Rushdie I actually read, you'll never find out because it's so bad it's unreadable.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,239

    Still no real rain here ffs... a couple of drops for about 2 mins doesn't count.

    Here it's been raining most of the morning - and the island was the first to get the hosepipe ban!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    One final note, it is common in these situations to belittle people being bold as simply because they are being keyboard warriors or the like, easy for them to say that etc.

    And this is true to an extent, of course it is easier to stick to principle in a respectful online discussion. But that doesn't mean principle is meaningless, people do fight for it and some number even among this genteel crowd would do so if put in that situation, and it is not really a dismissal to sneer at idealism about free speech principles. In a discussion there is no opportunity to test each other's mettle.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994
    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The most baffling part of the whole transphobic sticker/PCSO contretemps is why the woman chose to have and record for subsequent distribution a lengthy debate with the Plastic Police on the doorstep instead of telling them to fuck off.

    Possible attention starved conflict seeker. PB.com regulars may know the type.

    Maybe. Although given how angrily the police (or their support) react to people disagreeing with them I'd say even having a debate with them is bolder than many people would do. We're not all Dura Ace style devil may cares, alas!
    Maybe the debate seemed safer than telling the polis to do one?
    Ah, I see DA and Malmesbury have enlightened on this issue.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,131
    IanB2 said:

    Still no real rain here ffs... a couple of drops for about 2 mins doesn't count.

    Here it's been raining most of the morning - and the island was the first to get the hosepipe ban!
    They've pushed my rain back to tomorrow morning :frowning:

    That said, it's rather a nice day here. Gentle breeze, not too hot, bit of cloud around.

    Also unfortunately, I'm stuck inside working all day!
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,636
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:



    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.

    Politeness is a virtue, but I think she makes a decent point that we get enforced or faux politeness, and that is not so much a virtue.
    Sure. I think we can collectively agree that the State trying to enforce politeness is grotesque. I'm just arguing against the opposite extreme of saying "I reject State-enforced politeness, so I'm going to gratuitously offend a bunch of people, and that makes me a hero".

    It's actually difficult to say that without sounding as if I condoned the horrible attack on Rushdie, which of course I don't. But there should be space for the opinion that offending groups of people should be usually legal but usually undesirable.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    IshmaelZ said:

    Liz Truss now leads SKS by 4% in the polls.

    Labour still leads the Tories by 7%. SKS huge drag on Labour.

    Yebbut he pLAyeD a bLiNDeR cos he said gas shud cost less innit.

    Forensic.
    If there's an effect from that it won't be showing up in the polls yet.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,131

    LOL


    They need to take lots of pills, that's for sure...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,174

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,775

    A current item on BBC News illustrates the current vogue for being offended and making sure the world knows that you are offended:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-62552706

    "Reacting to the company's explanation, blogger and radio presenter Nickie O'Hara said their "gaslighting response" was "just abhorrent""

    The "abhorrent" response was

    "In a statement, a spokeswoman for the paint firm said the series of ads were "intended to be a humorous celebration of special life moments that prompt people to paint their homes, in this case focusing on Hannah and Dave, a happy couple expecting a baby together".

    "Whilst the ad has been broadly well received, we appreciate that people have differing views on humour and we apologise if any of the lyrics have caused offence," she added."

    Just astonishing. How on earth is that response "abhorrent" and how is this news to the BBC ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    edited August 16

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:



    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.

    Politeness is a virtue, but I think she makes a decent point that we get enforced or faux politeness, and that is not so much a virtue.
    Sure. I think we can collectively agree that the State trying to enforce politeness is grotesque. I'm just arguing against the opposite extreme of saying "I reject State-enforced politeness, so I'm going to gratuitously offend a bunch of people, and that makes me a hero".

    It's actually difficult to say that without sounding as if I condoned the horrible attack on Rushdie, which of course I don't. But there should be space for the opinion that offending groups of people should be usually legal but usually undesirable.
    We already have that space though - that's why most people do not gratuitously offend, and do not seek out gratuitously offensive material.

    So I feel your point is true, but that that space to be legal but undesirable is not in any way under threat. Whereas the shrinking of that space by it being treated as illegal (see the police involving themselves) or it not only being undesirable but dangerous and therefore actively discouraged (see things like Rushdie) is a much more active issue than the fear of an explosion of unfunny people crapping on the Torah or something.

    I would characterise it as one of those situations where people are so worried about the potential of offence, they dare not even risk offending. Not that we have a glut of offence happening.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    This fucking weather. Rain rain rain. Endless grey

    When will it stop?!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Jerry Sadowitz had his record banned cos it said Jimmy Savile was a paedophile. In 1987.
    He is one of the greatest close up magicians of all time.
    He is also a hardcore misanthrope. Frankie Boyle without the empathy. Bernard Manning without the smile.
    He should be on telly.

    I saw him live at the Criterion about 20 years ago. One of the very few comics I would class as a genius. Eddie izzard at his peak was another

    And yes: fantastic magician

    Interestingly he is one of the few comics I know who is apparently respected by ALL other comics, whatever their politics or genre or whatever
    Yes. Thanks for the Unherd article. I'm a big fan too, though I never got to see him live.
    I saw him do a card trick on TV where he had the 52 cards each with the letters of the alphabet twice on them. He gave the pack to a member of the audience to shuffle and cut. Then choose four. He didn't touch them.
    Turned over they spelled an abusive word. I've never figured out how on earth he did that. He's a sociopathic Paul Daniels.
    The fact is that he's been banned from TV for decades. He did a whole routine about Jimmy Savile. He would not promise not to say he was a paedophile live.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,451

    kle4 said:

    Is this really the zeitgeist cyclefree asks? The answer is yes, why even ask?

    The avoidance of offence I am quite sure a lot of people think is a genuine, legal matter. So many people use a 'I believe in X, but you shouldn't be able to say Y' without even getting close to issues of discriminatory or inciting speech, or indeed issues of facing consequences for your words on a non legal basis.

    As cyclefree notes the courts have, thankfully, rubbished the idea being approached by police over 'non crime hate incidents' is not a big deal, yet it is abundantly clear the police don't care, that's why it had to go to the court of appeal in the first place, as their attitude seems to be that their heart was in the right place, and who cares about what is either lawful or reasonable.

    I think the point about politeness out of fear of the consequences is simply cowardice masquerading as etiquette is a very good one. I'm as guilty of it as anyone, as it is just easier and, on some issues, safer, and I think we will see more and more of it.

    As to the question of whether religion or belief should be a protected characteristic or not, I confess I'm not really certain. I feel like removing it would not achieve anything or could have negative consequences. Certainly people and institutions act like things are protected characteristics which are not already, and if the zeitgeist is treating these things as inviolable, or emphasising as a matter of practicality best not to even risk it, what would really change? I feel like there are risks of not including religion or belief, even if at present we are giving too much deference.

    There's any number of things you probably should not say or do to give offence, but we should feel able to offend. We should not be obliged to be deferential to the beliefs of others, yet this is not a recent thing, just look at Shirley Williams and the audience in that QT clip outraged at the idea someone caused offence to others, as if that offence is the person's fault rather than oversensitive believers.

    I maintain, and I know people disagree with this conclusion, that if you cannot take mockery or comment of your faith without getting angry, then I feel like your faith is not actually that strong, because you act like a child and lash out rather than, I don't know, turning the other cheek or letting petty matters not affect your belief.

    I think the bit that people missed, is that the police are attempting to create a new category of crime.

    What penalty should we have for wearing a loud shirt in a built up area? What should it be for being in possession of an offensive wife?
    What should be the penalty imposed upon a woman who dresses immodestly?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,083

    Liz Truss now leads SKS by 4% in the polls.

    Labour still leads the Tories by 7%. SKS huge drag on Labour.

    Or maybe Truss a massive boost for the Tories?

    Hmm, no... On second thoughts, you must have it right.

    (Haven't seen the actual polling - link? - but it should be fairly clear from the numbers whether Truss a positive or Starmer a negative, shouldn't it?)
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,775
    IanB2 said:

    Still no real rain here ffs... a couple of drops for about 2 mins doesn't count.

    Here it's been raining most of the morning - and the island was the first to get the hosepipe ban!
    In gods own glorious south Durham we have had light rain since about 8.30. Just what the Dr ordered.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,775
    Leon said:

    This fucking weather. Rain rain rain. Endless grey

    When will it stop?!

    Typical British weather
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,451
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    So, are you saying that Charlie Hebdo were accomplices to these murders?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730
    .
    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    edited August 16
    Cyclefree said:

    CanI go off topic on my own header?

    Yes.

    Interesting article - https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/1559464379074084864?s=21&t=3u0kIg5xHLC1GQl7Nzss1Q

    I love the reference to random travel animals. But I really want to know about the personal reasons forcing one to spend 3 months in the sun.


    Why not, at the age of 58, do a geriatric version of a gap year, wandering freely about the globe? And that is exactly what I did. I packed my suitcase, headed out, and let whimsy and the weather dictate where I went next. Some days on my odyssey I would wake up, decide to go to a different country, and get on a plane, train or boat that same afternoon.


    Or indeed, spend some time on a political discussion board. Someone should suggest that to the chap.

    Rather heartwarming stuff

    What I learnt is that the world is much freer and more open than we think, in these post-Covid times. That people are nice everywhere (it's good to be reminded). That doing what I did doesn't break the bank (£7,000 for three months – it sounds a lot, but I'm not sure I'd have spent less in London). I also learnt that, to get the most from the endeavour, you have to travel alone. Yes, alone. Of course that can sometimes seem lonely and isolating. But if you are alone you go out and meet people – and people mean experiences, and experiences are the treasure you store in heaven.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,736
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    Plus protection of freedom of religion and belief as we have allows people of whatever faith to practise that faith freely and atheists too the right to express their disagreements with them
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Ah, excellent, my copy of The Satanic Verses has just arrived in the post. I've heard it isn't actually very good, but we shall see.

    If it's as bad as the one Rushdie I actually read, you'll never find out because it's so bad it's unreadable.
    Iran actually gave him a literary award for an earlier novel.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,157
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    If he is celibate as I understand he is supposed to be, is that not quite likely?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368
    edited August 16
    Morning all.
    Interesting and thought provoking article from Cyclefree. Somehow at times it feels like we've lost our way from the absolutely admirable being generally tolerant and kind as a virtue to tolerance and kindness meaning you must accept every single demand from one side of a current burning social issue. The rabble rousing highly amateur failed comic in me screams 'no, i'm not staring at your breasts, i'm bat eyed and trying to read the pronouns on your name tag so i don't misgender you' and bang, offence may now be taken, or a wry smile, or just a stick with which to beat a poster whom you dislike.
    Offence is too often weaponised and used turnabout in ironically 'offensive' assaults (guilty as charged btw - e.g. how surprising a lefty would say that! Oh, look at the little Englander Gammon getting hot under the collar. Here come the snowflakes. God botherer getting moralistic. Etc etc etc), or its weaponised as defence ordinance, ive written to the advertising standards authority. How dare you! I knew someone who was killed by a safe falling on their head and they had chronic hay fever so im whipping up a hate mob on twitter against you for your off colour 'he sneezed so hard he fell under a falling safe' skit
    As someone once said 'its all old bollocks'.
    That of course doesnt mean we can't be generally kind and tolerant on an individual basis whilst ripping the piss far more generically when it pleases. That sounds a fairly reasonable base tenet
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,932
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    Except you didn't mention Charlie Hebdo once in your original posting to which I replied. Nor did I. You are a fucking worm trying to change the narrative to justify your failed claims and hoping no one will notice.

    You are part of the problem and yes people like you deserve to be insulted and ridiculed.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Jerry Sadowitz had his record banned cos it said Jimmy Savile was a paedophile. In 1987.
    He is one of the greatest close up magicians of all time.
    He is also a hardcore misanthrope. Frankie Boyle without the empathy. Bernard Manning without the smile.
    He should be on telly.

    I saw him live at the Criterion about 20 years ago. One of the very few comics I would class as a genius. Eddie izzard at his peak was another

    And yes: fantastic magician

    Interestingly he is one of the few comics I know who is apparently respected by ALL other comics, whatever their politics or genre or whatever
    Yes. Thanks for the Unherd article. I'm a big fan too, though I never got to see him live.
    I saw him do a card trick on TV where he had the 52 cards each with the letters of the alphabet twice on them. He gave the pack to a member of the audience to shuffle and cut. Then choose four. He didn't touch them.
    Turned over they spelled an abusive word. I've never figured out how on earth he did that. He's a sociopathic Paul Daniels.
    The fact is that he's been banned from TV for decades. He did a whole routine about Jimmy Savile. He would not promise not to say he was a paedophile live.
    That’s actually a crucial point about Sadowitz re Savile. That’s why we need a truly robust defence of free speech. Because truths can often be bitterly uncomfortable and many would rather not hear them. But it is nearly always better to know the truth

    See also Nick Griffin on the grooming gangs. Also nearly silenced
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,174
    Nigelb said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
    I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?

    You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843

    kle4 said:

    Ah, excellent, my copy of The Satanic Verses has just arrived in the post. I've heard it isn't actually very good, but we shall see.

    I am constantly reminded these past few days of the joke at the time of The Satanic Verses that Rushdie's follow up was going to be called "Buddha is a Big Fat Bastard". :)
    Look, if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him, but don't make fun of his weight problem.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,775
    dixiedean said:

    Jerry Sadowitz had his record banned cos it said Jimmy Savile was a paedophile. In 1987.
    He is one of the greatest close up magicians of all time.
    He is also a hardcore misanthrope. Frankie Boyle without the empathy. Bernard Manning without the smile.
    He should be on telly.

    His TV series in the early nineties, the Pall Bearers review, was very good. a mix of his comedy and his magic which was excellent. He didn;t have much complimentary to say about the likes of Paul Daniels or Geoffrey Durham and mercilessly lampooned them in his act. Terrific show, the opening titles had him being hung.

    He also did a series called the People v Jerry Sadowitz where members of the public would talk to him and the person who was most interesting would win £10K. No one ever one. He just ripped on them. He had Dave Courtney, celebrity "gangster", as his minder who ejected the hapless people. It was okay for the first couple of episodes but pretty samey after that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,131
    Leon said:

    This fucking weather. Rain rain rain. Endless grey

    When will it stop?!

    Come to Cannock, it's bone dry.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445
    edited August 16
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Jerry Sadowitz had his record banned cos it said Jimmy Savile was a paedophile. In 1987.
    He is one of the greatest close up magicians of all time.
    He is also a hardcore misanthrope. Frankie Boyle without the empathy. Bernard Manning without the smile.
    He should be on telly.

    I saw him live at the Criterion about 20 years ago. One of the very few comics I would class as a genius. Eddie izzard at his peak was another

    And yes: fantastic magician

    Interestingly he is one of the few comics I know who is apparently respected by ALL other comics, whatever their politics or genre or whatever
    Yes. Thanks for the Unherd article. I'm a big fan too, though I never got to see him live.
    I saw him do a card trick on TV where he had the 52 cards each with the letters of the alphabet twice on them. He gave the pack to a member of the audience to shuffle and cut. Then choose four. He didn't touch them.
    Turned over they spelled an abusive word. I've never figured out how on earth he did that. He's a sociopathic Paul Daniels.
    The fact is that he's been banned from TV for decades. He did a whole routine about Jimmy Savile. He would not promise not to say he was a paedophile live.
    That’s actually a crucial point about Sadowitz re Savile. That’s why we need a truly robust defence of free speech. Because truths can often be bitterly uncomfortable and many would rather not hear them. But it is nearly always better to know the truth

    See also Nick Griffin on the grooming gangs. Also nearly silenced
    "You know why he does so many marathons?
    Trying to run away from his f**king conscience."
    Pretty sure that was late 80's.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    Leon said:

    This fucking weather. Rain rain rain. Endless grey

    When will it stop?!

    Absolubtely no rain up in Sheffield still.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,174

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    Except you didn't mention Charlie Hebdo once in your original posting to which I replied. Nor did I. You are a fucking worm trying to change the narrative to justify your failed claims and hoping no one will notice.

    You are part of the problem and yes people like you deserve to be insulted and ridiculed.
    Ha ha ha. I am not allowed to pray in aid an example which exposes the complete negative IQ vacuity of your entire point, because I hadn't previously mentioned it? OK. Of course I am not.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,131

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    If he is celibate as I understand he is supposed to be, is that not quite likely?
    Are you tossing that one out there for us to ponder?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 9,347
    Cyclefree said:

    CanI go off topic on my own header?

    Yes.

    Interesting article - https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/1559464379074084864?s=21&t=3u0kIg5xHLC1GQl7Nzss1Q

    I love the reference to random travel animals. But I really want to know about the personal reasons forcing one to spend 3 months in the sun.

    I've not read it, but I suspect it's linked to SAD, plus people commissioning a writer to write stuff. Or paying someone to post endless photos from overseas to piss people off on a politics forum.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 1,723

    Leon said:



    PissChrist was, in fact, a serious piece of art. It said “this looks like heresy or sacrilege, but what I am actually saying is that all aspects of human life - even our snot, shit and piss - are sacred. And therefore beautiful. Urine is yellow, but it is golden. Celebrate”

    It was the modern art equivalent of Caravaggio scandalously portraying the apostles as dirty, sweat-stained common workmen

    Ah, I see. Fair enough, then - with a small reservation that I winder if there wasn't more attention-seeking than celebration of beauty. But I don't know that, and you may be right that it's a poor example of gratuitous offence.
    It is, however, a *great* example of something that the observer *can* take to be offensive, or not. Which is independent of whether the artist intends offence. And this is the pickle that people get themselves into.

    You don't have a "right" not to be offended - almost anything will offend some group of people, large or small.

    But as a producer of art, you have an obligation to consider the impact before, and after the act of creation, and decide whether that is what you intended, responding accordingly, and accepting the consequences (within the law).

    And then we all have the right to judge both the art and the artist in whatever way we see fit, (again, within the confines of the law).

    Whatever you think of Rushdie the person, or Rushdie's art, it is unequivocally true that he has accepted the consequences of his artistic choices; and that he should be protected to the best of our ability from the illegal actions taken against him.

    As an aside, I'm trying to think of a good example where someone *intends* offence, but none is taken. There must be one of those, too. Probably some dreadfully unfunny comedian.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,131
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Ah, excellent, my copy of The Satanic Verses has just arrived in the post. I've heard it isn't actually very good, but we shall see.

    I am constantly reminded these past few days of the joke at the time of The Satanic Verses that Rushdie's follow up was going to be called "Buddha is a Big Fat Bastard". :)
    Look, if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him, but don't make fun of his weight problem.
    Since the Buddha starved himself nearly to death, I think it unlikely he had a weight problem.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,083
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    If he is celibate as I understand he is supposed to be, is that not quite likely?
    Are you tossing that one out there for us to ponder?
    [Waits for someone to do the bashing the bishop joke...]
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,451
    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    Plus protection of freedom of religion and belief as we have allows people of whatever faith to practise that faith freely and atheists too the right to express their disagreements with them
    The distinction is to protect people from discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief on the one hand, and protecting religion or belief on the other. The state should do the former, but not the latter. Nor should the State operate on the basis that the adherents to any particular belief system get protection of that belief if they resort to violence.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,174

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    If he is celibate as I understand he is supposed to be, is that not quite likely?
    I am sure if you go and stand there with that sign, the result will be a thoughtful and fruitful theological discussion of the point. Let us know how you get on.

    IANAT, but I think the rule which enforces celibacy also forbids bashing the cardinal.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,941

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    Except you didn't mention Charlie Hebdo once in your original posting to which I replied. Nor did I. You are a fucking worm trying to change the narrative to justify your failed claims and hoping no one will notice.

    You are part of the problem and yes people like you deserve to be insulted and ridiculed.
    Quite a few million people were murdered as a result of the hurt feelings of a failed street artist.

    I blame the Belgians, who, if they had just said "We love being invaded" in 1914...
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 9,347
    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Still no real rain here ffs... a couple of drops for about 2 mins doesn't count.

    Here it's been raining most of the morning - and the island was the first to get the hosepipe ban!
    In gods own glorious south Durham we have had light rain since about 8.30. Just what the Dr ordered.
    After the hyperventilating about the wrong kind of rain, we are now experiencing steady, not too heavy, rain, after last nights 30 minute downpour.

    Weather doing what weather does. Drought will always end in the UK as we are an island with a mostly atlantic driven weather pattern. Whether we can fully recharge the water stocks over the winter is the bigger question. Need to avoid a blocked winter (which is a shame, as I like cold weather, but this winter in particular would be better for all if its warmer and wetter than average).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Ah, excellent, my copy of The Satanic Verses has just arrived in the post. I've heard it isn't actually very good, but we shall see.

    I am constantly reminded these past few days of the joke at the time of The Satanic Verses that Rushdie's follow up was going to be called "Buddha is a Big Fat Bastard". :)
    Look, if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him, but don't make fun of his weight problem.
    Since the Buddha starved himself nearly to death, I think it unlikely he had a weight problem.
    I presume the laughing/fat Buddha was a different dude.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,932
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    Except you didn't mention Charlie Hebdo once in your original posting to which I replied. Nor did I. You are a fucking worm trying to change the narrative to justify your failed claims and hoping no one will notice.

    You are part of the problem and yes people like you deserve to be insulted and ridiculed.
    Ha ha ha. I am not allowed to pray in aid an example which exposes the complete negative IQ vacuity of your entire point, because I hadn't previously mentioned it? OK. Of course I am not.
    No, because it doesn't. All you are doing is squirming because you got caught out.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,157
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    If he is celibate as I understand he is supposed to be, is that not quite likely?
    Are you tossing that one out there for us to ponder?
    I understood that this was a board where people came looking for a mass debate?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,131
    mwadams said:

    Leon said:



    PissChrist was, in fact, a serious piece of art. It said “this looks like heresy or sacrilege, but what I am actually saying is that all aspects of human life - even our snot, shit and piss - are sacred. And therefore beautiful. Urine is yellow, but it is golden. Celebrate”

    It was the modern art equivalent of Caravaggio scandalously portraying the apostles as dirty, sweat-stained common workmen

    Ah, I see. Fair enough, then - with a small reservation that I winder if there wasn't more attention-seeking than celebration of beauty. But I don't know that, and you may be right that it's a poor example of gratuitous offence.
    It is, however, a *great* example of something that the observer *can* take to be offensive, or not. Which is independent of whether the artist intends offence. And this is the pickle that people get themselves into.

    You don't have a "right" not to be offended - almost anything will offend some group of people, large or small.

    But as a producer of art, you have an obligation to consider the impact before, and after the act of creation, and decide whether that is what you intended, responding accordingly, and accepting the consequences (within the law).

    And then we all have the right to judge both the art and the artist in whatever way we see fit, (again, within the confines of the law).

    Whatever you think of Rushdie the person, or Rushdie's art, it is unequivocally true that he has accepted the consequences of his artistic choices; and that he should be protected to the best of our ability from the illegal actions taken against him.

    As an aside, I'm trying to think of a good example where someone *intends* offence, but none is taken. There must be one of those, too. Probably some dreadfully unfunny comedian.
    The Goodies spent years trying to wind up Mary Whitehouse after she said something complimentary about one of their shows, because they were terrified people would think it was naff if she didn't complain. I gather it took about nine series before they succeeded despite creating a 'Mrs Disiree Carthorse' specifically to parody her.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,174
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Ah, excellent, my copy of The Satanic Verses has just arrived in the post. I've heard it isn't actually very good, but we shall see.

    I am constantly reminded these past few days of the joke at the time of The Satanic Verses that Rushdie's follow up was going to be called "Buddha is a Big Fat Bastard". :)
    Look, if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him, but don't make fun of his weight problem.
    Since the Buddha starved himself nearly to death, I think it unlikely he had a weight problem.
    Turns out the fatty is a different embodiment altogether from Gautama

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budai

    So I genuinely learneed something new and important today.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,154
    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
    I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?

    You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
    Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.

    Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why

    Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,131
    Selebian said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    If he is celibate as I understand he is supposed to be, is that not quite likely?
    Are you tossing that one out there for us to ponder?
    [Waits for someone to do the bashing the bishop joke...]
    I mitre guessed that would be next.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,131

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    Except you didn't mention Charlie Hebdo once in your original posting to which I replied. Nor did I. You are a fucking worm trying to change the narrative to justify your failed claims and hoping no one will notice.

    You are part of the problem and yes people like you deserve to be insulted and ridiculed.
    Quite a few million people were murdered as a result of the hurt feelings of a failed street artist.

    I blame the Belgians, who, if they had just said "We love being invaded" in 1914...
    KAiser Wilhelm was a failed street artist? I thought he was just touchy about his withered arm and paederastic tendencies?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    edited August 16
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    Plus protection of freedom of religion and belief as we have allows people of whatever faith to practise that faith freely and atheists too the right to express their disagreements with them
    The distinction is to protect people from discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief on the one hand, and protecting religion or belief on the other. The state should do the former, but not the latter. Nor should the State operate on the basis that the adherents to any particular belief system get protection of that belief if they resort to violence.
    A good distinction. Not discriminating against, but also not discriminating (through protection not offered to others) for.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,083

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    Except you didn't mention Charlie Hebdo once in your original posting to which I replied. Nor did I. You are a fucking worm trying to change the narrative to justify your failed claims and hoping no one will notice.

    You are part of the problem and yes people like you deserve to be insulted and ridiculed.
    I understood 'fuckwits' in RT's comment to be reserved for Muslims who think Allah wants them to go and kill others, rather than Muslims in general.

    To me, it's a fair* description of anyone who uses religion to justify violence or persecution, but not of anyone who is simply religious.

    *well, perhaps not quite right, as it excuses evil by attributing it to stupidity.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Jerry Sadowitz had his record banned cos it said Jimmy Savile was a paedophile. In 1987.
    He is one of the greatest close up magicians of all time.
    He is also a hardcore misanthrope. Frankie Boyle without the empathy. Bernard Manning without the smile.
    He should be on telly.

    I saw him live at the Criterion about 20 years ago. One of the very few comics I would class as a genius. Eddie izzard at his peak was another

    And yes: fantastic magician

    Interestingly he is one of the few comics I know who is apparently respected by ALL other comics, whatever their politics or genre or whatever
    Yes. Thanks for the Unherd article. I'm a big fan too, though I never got to see him live.
    I saw him do a card trick on TV where he had the 52 cards each with the letters of the alphabet twice on them. He gave the pack to a member of the audience to shuffle and cut. Then choose four. He didn't touch them.
    Turned over they spelled an abusive word. I've never figured out how on earth he did that. He's a sociopathic Paul Daniels.
    The fact is that he's been banned from TV for decades. He did a whole routine about Jimmy Savile. He would not promise not to say he was a paedophile live.
    That’s actually a crucial point about Sadowitz re Savile. That’s why we need a truly robust defence of free speech. Because truths can often be bitterly uncomfortable and many would rather not hear them. But it is nearly always better to know the truth

    See also Nick Griffin on the grooming gangs. Also nearly silenced
    John Lydon's 1978 interview where he alludes to Savile's predatory pedophilia and establishment cover up comes to mind.
    Same man who also said 'we should just learn to bloody love each other better'
    Top lad
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    If he is celibate as I understand he is supposed to be, is that not quite likely?
    Are you tossing that one out there for us to ponder?
    I understood that this was a board where people came looking for a mass debate?
    Pull the other one.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Ah, excellent, my copy of The Satanic Verses has just arrived in the post. I've heard it isn't actually very good, but we shall see.

    I am constantly reminded these past few days of the joke at the time of The Satanic Verses that Rushdie's follow up was going to be called "Buddha is a Big Fat Bastard". :)
    Look, if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him, but don't make fun of his weight problem.
    Since the Buddha starved himself nearly to death, I think it unlikely he had a weight problem.
    Yes.
    The Buddha. Siddhartha Gautama, Buddha Shakyamuni, is never depicted as fat.
    The veneration of Budai in Chinese Buddhism (where being overweight is culturally favoured) has been confused in the West onto the actual Buddha.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budai
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,775

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Still no real rain here ffs... a couple of drops for about 2 mins doesn't count.

    Here it's been raining most of the morning - and the island was the first to get the hosepipe ban!
    In gods own glorious south Durham we have had light rain since about 8.30. Just what the Dr ordered.
    After the hyperventilating about the wrong kind of rain, we are now experiencing steady, not too heavy, rain, after last nights 30 minute downpour.

    Weather doing what weather does. Drought will always end in the UK as we are an island with a mostly atlantic driven weather pattern. Whether we can fully recharge the water stocks over the winter is the bigger question. Need to avoid a blocked winter (which is a shame, as I like cold weather, but this winter in particular would be better for all if its warmer and wetter than average).

    Hyperventilating is a good way of putting it. The rain is coming. It's the "wrong rain" and lo and behold it isn't.

    Last winter was nice and mild up here, so another winter like that will be just fine.

    For us we are pretty much well insulated so there is little we can do to reduce our usage significantly apart from working in the office full time which I may do as I do not drive to work as a rule.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,174
    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
    I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?

    You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
    Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.

    Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why

    Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
    You what?

    What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    If people who cause offence are partly responsible for deaths and violence that uses that offence as a pretext, presumably causing offence should definitely be illegal. Not yet seen an answer to that query yet.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,941
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    Except you didn't mention Charlie Hebdo once in your original posting to which I replied. Nor did I. You are a fucking worm trying to change the narrative to justify your failed claims and hoping no one will notice.

    You are part of the problem and yes people like you deserve to be insulted and ridiculed.
    Quite a few million people were murdered as a result of the hurt feelings of a failed street artist.

    I blame the Belgians, who, if they had just said "We love being invaded" in 1914...
    KAiser Wilhelm was a failed street artist? I thought he was just touchy about his withered arm and paederastic tendencies?
    No, he was failed comedian. He did tell one funny joke, though as a result of WWI. One Joke, One World War.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    edited August 16
    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
    I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?

    You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
    Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.

    Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why

    Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
    You what?

    What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
    Who can say, you are claiming a lot of different people are responsible for deaths and violence perpetrated by others (not yet clear whether that means people should be legally prevented from causing offence, but I presume so otherwise what's the point of saying they are partly responsible in the first place), so it is rather hard to follow.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,131

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
    Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.

    Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?

    The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
    God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.

    On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

    I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.

    And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
    Except you didn't mention Charlie Hebdo once in your original posting to which I replied. Nor did I. You are a fucking worm trying to change the narrative to justify your failed claims and hoping no one will notice.

    You are part of the problem and yes people like you deserve to be insulted and ridiculed.
    Quite a few million people were murdered as a result of the hurt feelings of a failed street artist.

    I blame the Belgians, who, if they had just said "We love being invaded" in 1914...
    KAiser Wilhelm was a failed street artist? I thought he was just touchy about his withered arm and paederastic tendencies?
    No, he was failed comedian. He did tell one funny joke, though as a result of WWI. One Joke, One World War.
    Ein Joke, Ein Reich, Ein Fuckup?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,154
    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
    I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?

    You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
    Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.

    Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why

    Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
    You what?

    What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
    You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993

    Cyclefree said:

    CanI go off topic on my own header?

    Yes.

    Interesting article - https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/1559464379074084864?s=21&t=3u0kIg5xHLC1GQl7Nzss1Q

    I love the reference to random travel animals. But I really want to know about the personal reasons forcing one to spend 3 months in the sun.

    I've not read it, but I suspect it's linked to SAD, plus people commissioning a writer to write stuff. Or paying someone to post endless photos from overseas to piss people off on a politics forum.
    No, he subtly alludes to being “forced” to leave the UK and go into exile. From what we know of this miscreant, I suspect the police are involved
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,941
    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
    I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?

    You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.

    Are you offended by the following - leading members of Sein Fein have been given, by successive Home Secs, the right to carry a gun for personal protection. The said guns are provided by the British government. Which also provides ammunition and training.

    A few years back, they complained that the guns weren't nice enough. So they got replaced by some rather special Sigs.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    File under “and how the fuck do you do that?”


  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,174
    kle4 said:

    If people who cause offence are partly responsible for deaths and violence that uses that offence as a pretext, presumably causing offence should definitely be illegal. Not yet seen an answer to that query yet.

    It doesn't justify much effort, I am afraid. Like saying that any attempt to reduce knife crime or car accidents implies that knives and cars should be made illegal.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,112
    edited August 16
    I don't know how to quantify how much I agree with Cyclefree here, as it is so complete and total.

    Laws however are made because manners and politeness fails and because a small number of people test boundaries.

    So here are three hard questions:

    1) Should X have the right lawfully to go up to a black stranger in the street and say, calmly and quietly: "You are a fat ugly N- and a hateful W-. I hate all N-s and P-s and believe you should all be sent home to B- B- land".

    2) Should it be lawful to stand outside the infant school playground, in an adjacent public space, and shout a stream of four letter words.

    3) Should X have the law on their side if they go up to a woman in a public place and say "I am no intention of raping you but I should very much like to, I hope that's OK".

    I am and old fashioned free speech liberal but have real problems with all three. Where does Cyclefree stand?

  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368
    kle4 said:

    If people who cause offence are partly responsible for deaths and violence that uses that offence as a pretext, presumably causing offence should definitely be illegal. Not yet seen an answer to that query yet.

    No. Golf club manufacturers arent responsible for the club being used to bludgeon a dog to death. Manufacturers of offence are not responsible for it being misused as an excuse for violence.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,174

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
    I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?

    You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.

    Are you offended by the following - leading members of Sein Fein have been given, by successive Home Secs, the right to carry a gun for personal protection. The said guns are provided by the British government. Which also provides ammunition and training.

    A few years back, they complained that the guns weren't nice enough. So they got replaced by some rather special Sigs.
    Have they really?

    And, no, in the scheme of MPs expenses (which I assume they don't claim) that seems value for money.
  • northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 1,045
    Off topic folks, last night I watched the two episodes of India 1947: Partition in Colour - https://www.channel4.com/programmes/india-1947-partition-in-colour?cntsrc=social_share_ios_india_1947_partition_in_colour

    Well worth watching. None of the major players come out of it very well at all. An administrative and logistical clusterfuck. What a tragedy.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445
    Leon said:

    File under “and how the fuck do you do that?”


    Pity Raymond Briggs just died.
    He wrote a how to guide.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,479

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.09 Liz Truss 92%
    11 Rishi Sunak 9%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.09 Liz Truss 92%
    11 Rishi Sunak 9%

    Rishi out half a point before tonight's hustings in Perth, Scotland.

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.09 Liz Truss 92%
    11.5 Rishi Sunak 9%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.09 Liz Truss 92%
    11.5 Rishi Sunak 9%
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,174
    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
    I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?

    You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
    Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.

    Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why

    Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
    You what?

    What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
    You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
    Aaaand we are back to the inexplicable No dual causation PB fallacy

    Bloke with an axe asks you where his wife is. You tell him. He cuts her head off.

    are you solely responsible?
    is he solely responsible?
    are you partly to blame?

    Take your time.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,941
    Leon said:

    File under “and how the fuck do you do that?”


    Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.

    6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445
    The popular sleeping or reclining Buddha represents the Buddha about to achieve parinirvana.
    Or die, in other words.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,154

    kle4 said:

    If people who cause offence are partly responsible for deaths and violence that uses that offence as a pretext, presumably causing offence should definitely be illegal. Not yet seen an answer to that query yet.

    No. Golf club manufacturers arent responsible for the club being used to bludgeon a dog to death. Manufacturers of offence are not responsible for it being misused as an excuse for violence.
    I actually would apportion partial blame for those deaths more to people like Ishmael, the hand wringers who condone the violence perpetrated because after all they wouldn't have done it if someone hadn't printed something that made them feel bad. Attitudes like his give succour to the pyschopaths who get bent out of shape by a few words on a page and tell them it is ok because its understandable that they would feel the need to go out and kill innocent people
  • northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 1,045
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    File under “and how the fuck do you do that?”


    Pity Raymond Briggs just died.
    He wrote a how to guide.
    I picked that up in the library when I was a kid, like 10 or something. Same size as Tintin and Asterix books, cartoons. Thought I’d enjoy it. Still scarred by it!
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,154
    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
    I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?

    You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
    Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.

    Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why

    Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
    You what?

    What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
    You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
    Aaaand we are back to the inexplicable No dual causation PB fallacy

    Bloke with an axe asks you where his wife is. You tell him. He cuts her head off.

    are you solely responsible?
    is he solely responsible?
    are you partly to blame?

    Take your time.
    He is solely responsible
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,157
    algarkirk said:

    I don't know how to quantify how much I agree with Cyclefree here, as it is so complete and total.

    Laws however are made because manners and politeness fails and because a small number of people test boundaries.

    So here are three hard questions:

    1) Should X have the right lawfully to go up to a black stranger in the street and say, calmly and quietly: "You are a fat ugly N- and a hateful W-. I hate all N-s and P-s and believe you should all be sent home to B- B- land".

    2) Should it be lawful to stand outside the infant school playground, in an adjacent public space, and shout a stream of four letter words.

    3) Should X have the law on their side if they go up to a woman in a public place and say "I am no intention of raping you but I should very much like to, I hope that's OK".

    I am and old fashioned free speech liberal but have real problems with all three. Where does Cyclefree stand?

    1) Harassment
    2) Public Nuisance
    3) Sexual Harassment

    Think our current laws are broadly correct with all three scenarios and do not curtail free speech.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,941
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
    I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?

    You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.

    Are you offended by the following - leading members of Sein Fein have been given, by successive Home Secs, the right to carry a gun for personal protection. The said guns are provided by the British government. Which also provides ammunition and training.

    A few years back, they complained that the guns weren't nice enough. So they got replaced by some rather special Sigs.
    Have they really?

    And, no, in the scheme of MPs expenses (which I assume they don't claim) that seems value for money.
    They claim expenses and maintain full office staffs. They just refuse to enter the Commons and vote. They do all the other MP stuff.

    But this comes out of your tax money. If they had simply not offended people by being leading members of SF, then there would be no need for this.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,174

    Leon said:

    File under “and how the fuck do you do that?”


    Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.

    6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
    After the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of Ukraine in April, 1986 people were advised to drink red wine or vodka in order to neutralize radio-active toxic effects.

    https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/219092#1
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,174
    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
    I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?

    You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
    Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.

    Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why

    Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
    You what?

    What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
    You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
    Aaaand we are back to the inexplicable No dual causation PB fallacy

    Bloke with an axe asks you where his wife is. You tell him. He cuts her head off.

    are you solely responsible?
    is he solely responsible?
    are you partly to blame?

    Take your time.
    He is solely responsible
    Moral imbecility.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,032
    Anyway have not had time to read the comments so will catch up later.

    I do hope I have provoked and annoyed and stimulated debate and that you aren't all talking about bloody A****s or W***3****s or T***s.

    Oh and the weather is lovely here. That Sean Thomas character should come here if he wants to hide from bailiffs or vengeful exes. There are advantages to living in the Arse End of Nowhere, you know.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,112
    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
    I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?

    You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
    Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.

    Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why

    Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
    You what?

    What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
    You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
    Aaaand we are back to the inexplicable No dual causation PB fallacy

    Bloke with an axe asks you where his wife is. You tell him. He cuts her head off.

    are you solely responsible?
    is he solely responsible?
    are you partly to blame?

    Take your time.
    Can you suggest a mechanism for verifying the correctness of an answer?

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Still no real rain here ffs... a couple of drops for about 2 mins doesn't count.

    Here it's been raining most of the morning - and the island was the first to get the hosepipe ban!
    In gods own glorious south Durham we have had light rain since about 8.30. Just what the Dr ordered.
    After the hyperventilating about the wrong kind of rain, we are now experiencing steady, not too heavy, rain, after last nights 30 minute downpour.

    Weather doing what weather does. Drought will always end in the UK as we are an island with a mostly atlantic driven weather pattern. Whether we can fully recharge the water stocks over the winter is the bigger question. Need to avoid a blocked winter (which is a shame, as I like cold weather, but this winter in particular would be better for all if its warmer and wetter than average).

    Hyperventilating is a good way of putting it. The rain is coming. It's the "wrong rain" and lo and behold it isn't.

    Last winter was nice and mild up here, so another winter like that will be just fine.

    For us we are pretty much well insulated so there is little we can do to reduce our usage significantly apart from working in the office full time which I may do as I do not drive to work as a rule.

    Food is going to go up in price, farmers are onto winter feed already due to the lack of rain.
    First time in forever the field we keep our horses on over summer hasn't lasted till November for pasture.
    Not even sure the horseshit could be harrowed effectively it's so dry

  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    File under “and how the fuck do you do that?”


    Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.

    6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
    After the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of Ukraine in April, 1986 people were advised to drink red wine or vodka in order to neutralize radio-active toxic effects.

    https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/219092#1
    That makes me basically invulnerable to radioactivity
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,941

    algarkirk said:

    I don't know how to quantify how much I agree with Cyclefree here, as it is so complete and total.

    Laws however are made because manners and politeness fails and because a small number of people test boundaries.

    So here are three hard questions:

    1) Should X have the right lawfully to go up to a black stranger in the street and say, calmly and quietly: "You are a fat ugly N- and a hateful W-. I hate all N-s and P-s and believe you should all be sent home to B- B- land".

    2) Should it be lawful to stand outside the infant school playground, in an adjacent public space, and shout a stream of four letter words.

    3) Should X have the law on their side if they go up to a woman in a public place and say "I am no intention of raping you but I should very much like to, I hope that's OK".

    I am and old fashioned free speech liberal but have real problems with all three. Where does Cyclefree stand?

    1) Harassment
    2) Public Nuisance
    3) Sexual Harassment

    Think our current laws are broadly correct with all three scenarios and do not curtail free speech.
    The laws in question do curtail free speech. That is their purpose and why they were passed.

    The limits of the liberty for me to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. Deciding on that borderline is the question for the ages.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,157

    algarkirk said:

    I don't know how to quantify how much I agree with Cyclefree here, as it is so complete and total.

    Laws however are made because manners and politeness fails and because a small number of people test boundaries.

    So here are three hard questions:

    1) Should X have the right lawfully to go up to a black stranger in the street and say, calmly and quietly: "You are a fat ugly N- and a hateful W-. I hate all N-s and P-s and believe you should all be sent home to B- B- land".

    2) Should it be lawful to stand outside the infant school playground, in an adjacent public space, and shout a stream of four letter words.

    3) Should X have the law on their side if they go up to a woman in a public place and say "I am no intention of raping you but I should very much like to, I hope that's OK".

    I am and old fashioned free speech liberal but have real problems with all three. Where does Cyclefree stand?

    1) Harassment
    2) Public Nuisance
    3) Sexual Harassment

    Think our current laws are broadly correct with all three scenarios and do not curtail free speech.
    The laws in question do curtail free speech. That is their purpose and why they were passed.

    The limits of the liberty for me to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. Deciding on that borderline is the question for the ages.
    Ok, do not improperly curtail free speech.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway have not had time to read the comments so will catch up later.

    I do hope I have provoked and annoyed and stimulated debate and that you aren't all talking about bloody A****s or W***3****s or T***s.

    No, all about C**c**t.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,174

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
    I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?

    You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.

    Are you offended by the following - leading members of Sein Fein have been given, by successive Home Secs, the right to carry a gun for personal protection. The said guns are provided by the British government. Which also provides ammunition and training.

    A few years back, they complained that the guns weren't nice enough. So they got replaced by some rather special Sigs.
    Have they really?

    And, no, in the scheme of MPs expenses (which I assume they don't claim) that seems value for money.
    They claim expenses and maintain full office staffs. They just refuse to enter the Commons and vote. They do all the other MP stuff.

    But this comes out of your tax money. If they had simply not offended people by being leading members of SF, then there would be no need for this.
    There's taking a political position, and there's trolling.

    Also they threw out a ridiculous hunting bill on a whipped vote in NI last year, so I am intensely relaxed about UK govt arming them.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 9,347
    Leon said:

    File under “and how the fuck do you do that?”


    Secure a decent suicide plan, as the aftermath, should you survive will not be fun.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?


  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,174
    algarkirk said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
    I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?

    You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
    Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.

    Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why

    Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
    You what?

    What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
    You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
    Aaaand we are back to the inexplicable No dual causation PB fallacy

    Bloke with an axe asks you where his wife is. You tell him. He cuts her head off.

    are you solely responsible?
    is he solely responsible?
    are you partly to blame?

    Take your time.
    Can you suggest a mechanism for verifying the correctness of an answer?

    Yes, just verify whether the questionee is a fully functioning human being. This isn't hard enough to dress up as a trolley problem or whatever (and I find most iterations of that easy and uninteresting anyway).
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,174
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    File under “and how the fuck do you do that?”


    Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.

    6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
    After the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of Ukraine in April, 1986 people were advised to drink red wine or vodka in order to neutralize radio-active toxic effects.

    https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/219092#1
    That makes me basically invulnerable to radioactivity
    Complacency is the enemy
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,112

    algarkirk said:

    I don't know how to quantify how much I agree with Cyclefree here, as it is so complete and total.

    Laws however are made because manners and politeness fails and because a small number of people test boundaries.

    So here are three hard questions:

    1) Should X have the right lawfully to go up to a black stranger in the street and say, calmly and quietly: "You are a fat ugly N- and a hateful W-. I hate all N-s and P-s and believe you should all be sent home to B- B- land".

    2) Should it be lawful to stand outside the infant school playground, in an adjacent public space, and shout a stream of four letter words.

    3) Should X have the law on their side if they go up to a woman in a public place and say "I am no intention of raping you but I should very much like to, I hope that's OK".

    I am and old fashioned free speech liberal but have real problems with all three. Where does Cyclefree stand?

    1) Harassment
    2) Public Nuisance
    3) Sexual Harassment

    Think our current laws are broadly correct with all three scenarios and do not curtail free speech.
    All noted. But your position is that free speech has to be curtailed, while denying that you are doing so by calling the curtailment by a different name. The problem is that to some people (SFAICS) having to read Thomas Hardy is some sort of harassment, as is listening to folks who don't care much for abortion and lots of other things.

    Calling curtailment by a different name does not resolve the issue.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    edited August 16
    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
    I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?

    You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
    Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.

    Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why

    Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
    You what?

    What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
    You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
    Aaaand we are back to the inexplicable No dual causation PB fallacy

    Bloke with an axe asks you where his wife is. You tell him. He cuts her head off.

    are you solely responsible?
    is he solely responsible?
    are you partly to blame?

    Take your time.
    He is solely responsible
    I feel like IshmaelZ thinks that ridiculous scenario, which is nothing whatsoever like the issue that has caused debate, is some devasting counter (and ignores the many response it has received), since it appears to be the sole basis of his argument. It's not exactly the philosophical equivalent of a full house.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,154
    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.

    To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.

    But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.

    Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.

    Agreed.
    She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
    Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
    Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile...
    Rushdie has not had police protection for over two decades, so your point is a little slender.
    Even less than slender if you're arguing prevention means legislating against free speech.
    I was paying taxes two decades ago. Has he offered to pay any of it back?

    You can legislate or not, but the four Jews murdered as a direct result of the Hebdo cartoons might have something to say about it if they were still alive. Why that point attracts a gammon-in-woke-clothing charge of victim blaming I will never cease to wonder.
    Do you also claim women are responsible for their own rape because of wearing less modest clothing I wonder as frankly that is your argument here. Things shouldn't be said in case some idiot takes offence and goes on a killing spree.

    Here's a thought then if you stand by what you said.....all religious books should be banned because what they have written in them has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Do you agree? I am betting not, so in that case explain why

    Rushdie writes satanic verses people kill because of what is says differs from muhammed writes the Quran people kill over what it says
    You what?

    What part of anything I wrote suggests to you that I think the Jews in question were in some way to blame for their own fate? What an utterly fucking preposterous claim.
    You blamed people being provocative for crimes committed by fuck wits, there is only one person to blame and that is the fuckwit that picks up a gun simple as that , Saying anything different just makes you an apologist for scum
    Aaaand we are back to the inexplicable No dual causation PB fallacy

    Bloke with an axe asks you where his wife is. You tell him. He cuts her head off.

    are you solely responsible?
    is he solely responsible?
    are you partly to blame?

    Take your time.
    He is solely responsible
    Moral imbecility.
    Well you certainly have been displaying it to us all but most people that read here really don't need you to explain what you have displayed.
This discussion has been closed.