Freedom of Speech/Inclusion/Tolerance etc.

[Snitsky's back acne]

2 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

1st paragraph: If you're talking about documentaries, we don't treat said murderers and rapists as though they're the legitimate side of a debate, though, do we? They're rightly portrayed as criminals and therefore evil people whom good (or at least non-evil) people caught.

2nd paragraph: They're both illegal. They've been criminalised for a reason. With that in mind, such people should not, cannot be given a platform.

But I can see why the extremity of that comparison might be considered troubling, so let's scale it back a little: what about fraudsters and conmen? They've never physically hurt anyone, but what they do is damaging and therefore illegal. Should they be given a platform to justify what they do, or to campaign to legalise fraud?

 

Words are not illegal. I can say 'I'll kill you' and not get arrested. 

Nick Leeson was given a platform [you could argue the size and importance of it given it was Celeb BB] but his sole reason for being on the show was as the result of committing fraud. It was promoted as such. Also, 'conman' is quite an elastic term - Boris Johnson is currently being called a conman for statements he made about money given to the EU. Now, we can argue about whether Boris should be given any kind of platform to talk [a discussion for the Brexit thread, methinks], but he has, and was, given a huge platform to promote a blatant lie AND justify it. 

I personally would have no issue with them being given a platform to legalise fraud [and I'm not saying I advocate fraud being made legal btw] but that's just me and my moral compass. I reckon it'd get a bit of traction but ultimately get voted against anyway.

So how about marijuana? It can be damaging and is illegal. Should we deny a platform to those wishing to justify smoking it or campaigning for it? 

 

[Devon Malcolm]

1 hour ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

However banning someone like Germaine Greer, for example, because she made a statement that trans-women are not 'real women' because they have had the benefit of male privilege at some point in their life - you can absolutely hate that she said that and yes, no doubt the trans community are rightly sick of being told what they are and are not by people who think they know better, but at the same time should those who may have been offended by what Greer said and want to discuss it directly with her not have the choice to do so? Even those who did agree with her? Again - not talking about 'promoting hate' or illegal activity, but someone who is clearly intelligent and made a very controversial and contentious statement about trans women. I would argue a university is EXACTLY the type of place Germaine Greer SHOULD be allowed to speak at because of the amount of contrasting views and opinions that would be provided. 

The person's comparative intellect should have NOTHING to do with this issue. And even if it is, Greer is worse, in a way, than the likes of Milo Yiannopoulos. As an alleged person of high intellect, she should know better than to be trotting out Victorian age opinions on gender, and it's not like this is a new thing from her. 

[Snitsky's back acne]

4 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

 But that's how radicalising works, isn't it?  Tell people who are disenfranchised, see no hope etc, that the reason they're being held back is because of a group and they start to feel like they belong.

Exactly - so denying them the right to speak is really going to make them feel less disenfranchised and hopeful isn't it... no, it's only going to breed more resentment and give them another excuse to harbour more hate. Actually engaging with them and understanding WHY they feel the way they do [like the documentary maker did] was what worked. Amazing!

Also, if you feel he changed because he looked like a bellend then surely allowing him a platform with which he could realise that was a good thing and, I dunno, might work on others?

[Snitsky's back acne]

4 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

The person's comparative intellect should have NOTHING to do with this issue. 

Did I say it did? 

[Devon Malcolm]

1 minute ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

Did I say it did? 

Why did you bring up her intellect if you're not saying that?

[Carbomb]

4 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

Words are not illegal. I can say 'I'll kill you' and not get arrested. 

Pretty sure threatening to kill someone can get you arrested. 

4 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

Nick Leeson was given a platform [you could argue the size and importance of it given it was Celeb BB] but his sole reason for being on the show was as the result of committing fraud. It was promoted as such. Also, 'conman' is quite an elastic term - Boris Johnson is currently being called a conman for statements he made about money given to the EU. Now, we can argue about whether Boris should be given any kind of platform to talk [a discussion for the Brexit thread, methinks], but he has, and was, given a huge platform to promote a blatant lie AND justify it. 

I personally would have no issue with them being given a platform to legalise fraud [and I'm not saying I advocate fraud being made legal btw] but that's just me and my moral compass. I reckon it'd get a bit of traction but ultimately get voted against anyway.

So how about marijuana? It can be damaging and is illegal. Should we deny a platform to those wishing to justify smoking it or campaigning for it? 

 

Leeson wasn't asked on to debate the morality of fraud, though, was he?

Johnson is now being prosecuted, as should be anyone who outright lies to influence the electorate. It normally is illegal if the vote is binding.

The status of marijuana is not set, though. The fact it's been legalised because of scientifically-demonstrable medical benefits means that it's still debatable as whether or not it should be decriminalised.

Racism, on the other hand, is demonstrably bad, as evidenced by the deaths of millions of people because of it, and the negative impacts on the lives of those who survived it.

[Snitsky's back acne]

2 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

Why did you bring up her intellect if you're not saying that?

We were talking within the context of university. Sorry to stereotype but my understanding was that those who attend university, and subsequently those who might be asked to speak to university students, would have at least a modicum of intelligence? I was not comparing her intellect to anybody else's in that regard. 

[Keith Houchen]

1 minute ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

Exactly - so denying them the right to speak is really going to make them feel less disenfranchised

I'm not talking about the right to speak, I'm talking about giving them a platform on which to speak. There is a world of difference.

 

2 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

Also, if you feel he changed because he looked like a bellend then surely allowing him a platform with which he could realise that was a good thing and, I dunno, might work on others?

Being videoed speaking isn't being given a platform, as I said he'd have reached the same conclusion if he was the only person in the world who watched it.  There are lots of groups that work with people who have been radicalised to help "Der-adicalise" them.  It doesn't always work but that engagement is a good thing.  The people who get the help say it was platforms such as social media which were key in radicalising them.

The thing is, the leaders and mainstays of extremists groups aren't going to change, but the individuals they recruit can.  Sure, engagement will help de-radicalise these people but if the leaders of these movements didn't have the platforms to begin with, I'd argue a lot of recruits wouldn't have been recruited and wouldn't need de-radicalising.

[gmoney]

12 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

Sorry to stereotype but my understanding was that those who attend university, and subsequently those who might be asked to speak to university students, would have at least a modicum of intelligence? 

 

[Snitsky's back acne]

1 minute ago, Carbomb said:

Pretty sure threatening to kill someone can get you arrested. 

Leeson wasn't asked on to debate the morality of fraud, though, was he?

Johnson is now being prosecuted, as should be anyone who outright lies to influence the electorate. It normally is illegal if the vote is binding.

The status of marijuana is not set, though. The fact it's been legalised because of scientifically-demonstrable medical benefits means that it's still debatable as whether or not it should be decriminalised.

Racism, on the other hand, is demonstrably bad, as evidenced by the deaths of millions of people because of it, and the negative impacts on the lives of those who survived it.

Who was threatening? I said 'I'll kill you'. My Sister said it to me when I drew on her BROS poster when I was 6. I'm pretty sure she didn't mean it... or maybe did at the time but didn't act on it.... who knows...

Leeson was asked to talk about, and give his opinion on, his crime, yes. 

I appreciate the status of marijuana is not set but should, in your opinion. people be allowed a platform to promote marijuana for recreational [not medical] use in a country where it is currently illegal and the long term affects disputed? I mean, if we are denying a platform to something that has caused millions of deaths and has had a negative impact on the lives of those who survived it then I never want to see another advert promoting alcohol on TV ever again.

 

 

 

[Snitsky's back acne]

13 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

 It doesn't always work but that engagement is a good thing.  The people who get the help say it was platforms such as social media which were key in radicalising them.

The thing is, the leaders and mainstays of extremists groups aren't going to change, but the individuals they recruit can.  Sure, engagement will help de-radicalise these people but if the leaders of these movements didn't have the platforms to begin with, I'd argue a lot of recruits wouldn't have been recruited and wouldn't need de-radicalising.

I don't disagree with you - as I have repeatedly said, it is not a one size fits all issue - what works for one person will not work for others.
My overall point is that we try something other than just de-platforming - and we both agree that it can work in some instances.
 

 

[Carbomb]

11 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

Who was threatening? I said 'I'll kill you'. My Sister said it to me when I drew on her BROS poster when I was 6. I'm pretty sure she didn't mean it... or maybe did at the time but didn't act on it.... who knows...

Leeson was asked to talk about, and give his opinion on, his crime, yes. 

I appreciate the status of marijuana is not set but should, in your opinion. people be allowed a platform to promote marijuana for recreational [not medical] use in a country where it is currently illegal and the long term affects disputed? I mean, if we are denying a platform to something that has caused millions of deaths and has had a negative impact on the lives of those who survived it then I never want to see another advert promoting alcohol on TV ever again.
 

1st para: Don't be disingenuous. You know very well making threats of violence people gets you arrested, and I'm not talking about casual, throwaway comments between children. 

2nd para: Again, you're being disingenuous. He wasn't being positioned as a debater taking the position that "fraud should be legal", or that what he did was morally right. Being asked to talk about something and give an opinion on something are not the same as espousing views on something.

3rd para: There are plenty of people who would argue that alcohol advertising should be illegal, just as cigarette advertising now is. That marijuana's status is disputed and its exponents can point to beneficial usage means it should be opened up for debate - unlike racism or murder, which, last I checked, have no demonstrable upsides.

Edited May 29, 2019 by Carbomb

[Snitsky's back acne]

2 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

1st para: Don't be disingenuous. You know very well making threats of violence people gets you arrested, and I'm not talking about casual, throwaway comments between children. 

2nd para: Again, you're being disingenuous. He wasn't being positioned as a debater taking the position that "fraud should be legal", or that what he did was morally right. Being asked to talk about something and give an opinion on something are not the same as espousing views on something.

3rd para: There are plenty of people who would argue that alcohol advertising should be illegal, just as cigarette advertising now is. That marijuana's status is disputed and its exponents can point to beneficial usage means it should be opened up for debate - unlike racism or murder, which, last I checked, have no demonstrable upsides.

First para: I wasn't being disingenuous - I was making a point that it's not the words, it's the intent.

Second para: I wasn't being disingenuous.

Third para: its quite the jump from marijuana and alcohol to racism and murder in fairness. .  

[SuperBacon]

Some really interesting points here, but I have to address the most important issue.

Nick Leeson was on Big Brother?

[Snitsky's back acne]

36 minutes ago, gmoney said:

 

Shit.....