Does the average Canadian think this means Don Cherry hates asians? It should be pretty simple to falsify if he’s just an old man barking at the moon. Show him a picture of asians and Indians wearing the flowers. If no such pictures exist, well maybe his n=1 observation was representative.
Do you have that insufferable white poppy shite in Canuckland? That one boils my piss something fierce.
Apologies for the diversion all!
I have never heard of white poppy. Could you describe it?
First of all, Europe is not a monolithic entity, and each country has developed it’s own strategies of dealing with the issue of free speech, from “progressive” universities in the UK to Trumplandias that are Hungary and Poland.
Most of the US media, not least due to the language barrier, simply rehash inflammatory articles from UK tabloids like The Sun and the Daily Mail hence the belief that Europe is a cesspool of deranged SJWs beating up people in the streets for failing to use an allowed gender neutral pronoun. That is not the case everywhere and varies dramatically from one country to the next.
This may be just anecdotal evidence, but from 15+ years of business dealings with both Europeans of various nationalities and 'Muricans (mostly upper middle class whites from both coasts) the self-censorship among the latter is much, much more prevalent, to a degree that regular small talked becomes stilted.
3 Likes
Oh yeah I agree. Some of the most open spoken people I’ve met are germans. But people are being charged with “sedition” in Sweden if they speak out about migrants. So there is some there, there. I should have asked for non-US perspectives.
Where did you get that? An article from two years ago in the largest Swedish newspaper openly stated that 90% of murders or murder attempts were committed by people with a “foreign background” (that’s the code word)
Honestly, you’d get more backlash from “progressives” in the US for such a blunt statement.
It is often worn by people who are pacifist. It commemorates all war dead.
I have issues with distracting from Remembrance Day for ‘all.’ Somewhat defeats the purpose, I think. Especially as some more radical UK folk wear it to spite the armed forces.
Edit: I’ve posted the wiki article because there’s a part on white poppies. The wiki is just happened to have no subdivision.
1 Like
Go to a football match in Europe and you’ll see free speech in action and it will be stuff Americans are too afraid to say in public.
Tottenham fans chant “yid” and even though it’s not for anti-Semitic reasons it wouldn’t be PC over here.
And Berlusconi was Trump before there was Trump. Americans really have no idea what goes on in Europe.
2 Likes
this is the first time I have heard of it. I haven’t noticed any.
I am reminded of the Pink Floyd song ‘Corporal Clegg’, which I think in terms of lyrics detracts from the ‘A Saucer Full of Secrets’ album.
Hitler probably loved pacifists in Allied countries, his own likely went to camp.
1 Like
They have landed themselves in trouble recently. There’s talk of fines and bans from stadiums for a particular chant from Westham? fans.
There’s also the jackboots in the MET who have acted like thugs over tweets.
It’s more legally precarious in the UK to speak, even if many don’t give a shit in practice.
Little old ladies being prosecuted for wrongthink.
Hate speech laws have existed for years in Sweden. These right wing sites imply that these laws are recent and put into effect because of recent Muslim immigration. They were originally put into place to protect Jews.
Doesn’t really matter why they’re in place. Are they bad policy? Does anyone agree with them? Is anyone served by the wannabe thought police reporting social media banter to the actual police?
We don’t have to look back far into history to see rulers on both sides of extreme spectrums abusing this type of thing. Try to criticize Xi Jinping in China, or recently Pinochet.
Would the Jews of Europe, or any sane human, before WW2 have had an issue with laws regulating hate speech with regard to antisemitism had they known what was to come?
See above.
Is it always just banter? People like to say it’s just words, they have no power or meaning, sticks and stones, etc. If that’s the case then why even say anything? If what you are saying is meaningless maybe you should wait until you have something of value to say before opening your mouth or posting on social media. What is the reason for posting hate speech if you don’t want anyone to actually take you seriously or care about your opinion? Why the need to share with the world your feelings on something then get upset when they let their feelings about what you posted known? People don’t just want free speech but they want freedom from consequences.
Right now in this country I don’t think we need laws to regulate hate speech, unless people are making threats but that is already covered under the law, but if there were a growing movement that targeted a minority group with violence maybe I would change my mind. Imagine if there were social media back during the Jim Crow era and the KKK would have been able to spread its hate easier and, due to the nature of social media’s intrusiveness, make it a constant presence in people’s lives.
In some European nations, if they see a reemerging pattern that targets Muslims in the same way that Jews were once targeted, I don’t think it would be wrong for them to take measures sooner than later.
Should the government prosecute people saying: “migrants commit more crimes than natives” “Islam is incompatible with the west”? Is that ‘hate speech’?
We’re talking about charges being filed by the government. Not ostracism or job offers being rescinded.
Also were the Jews unemployed, refusing to learn the language, immigrating as mostly military aged males, raping people at higher rates, living off the public dole and committing truck attacks on Christmas markets? This is an apples to rib eye steaks comparison to the migrant crisis.
1 Like
It could be. There is context.
For laws that have existed for over 50 years, pre sjw, snowflake whatever era we are in.
First off, you are now going off on a partisan, alt-right tangent.
Second, you don’t know if any of that is true just as most people in pre WW2 Germany didn’t know if what was said about the Jews was true. You, like them, are buying into what is being told to you (and no, I am not calling you a Nazi). And this brings us back to why hate speech is regulated there. When someone says migrants commit more crimes than natives, what is their point? What do they want to happen?
Gee, let me think…
Less crime?
3 Likes
I don’t know, you’d have to ask them. My guess would be they want less migration of economic migrants and criminals from north Africa. But if they present that line of reasoning it’s falsifiable. Either they committ more crimes or they don’t, then a conversation can happen.
I could either prove or you could falsify those claims. We could look at crime statistics, unemployment, terrorist attack reports etc… but we can’t do that if my position is literally illegal to state. You can’t prove my statement wrong if you just call the cops or try and get me fired.
By criminalizing and doxing/censoring speech you don’t like. You dothings you didn’t intend to do:
-
You prevent bad ideas from being resoundingly defeated in the marketplace of ideas. Imagine a David Duke vs Thomas Sowell debate. He’d get absolutely leveled. But if David Duke’s ideas are never allowed to come up against other ideas then the people he targets with his nonsense can never see that nonsense laid bare. The cure for bad speech is more speech, or however that cleche goes.
-
By banning certain types of speech and ideas you make them “counterculture” or “cool” when they otherwise wouldn’t be.
Why was there such an explosion of marxist thought on college campuses after the McCarthy era? Was it because marxist professors improved their messaging? No. Those ideas now had a ‘stick it to the man’ counter culture allure that they didn’t have before.
Why are 4chan and reddit gamers drawn into PUA and white supremacy nonsense? Is it because PUA or neo nazis are more convincing than they were 30 years ago? No. It’s because they get to say verboten things like ‘women are manipulative’ to their little buddies. Stuff they can’t say in the real world.
1 Like
What means to that end?
Gee, let me think about that too…
Change immigration policies to limit the number of violent immigrants?
2 Likes