New Zealand shootings.

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Other media are publishers and get held to a higher standard because of their reach and resources.

We're talking about Facebook and Google. They have a pretty wide reach and quite a lot of resources.

shortfall

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

The attacks in New Zealand were terrible but the proposed liberal backlash on thought is symptomatic of liberal bedwetting

Care to explain what you mean? It sounds a bit like "yes, I think mass murder is bad, but on the other hand I like memes and getting people annoyed".

It means I think Mass Murder is bad but thought control is also bad.

If you want to live in a liberal democracy you either have a liberal democracy or you dont. That means that you will come accross views that are sometimes 180 degrees to yours.

Otherwise its a slippery slope to "liberal" totalitarianism.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by the 'proposed liberal backlash on thought' or 'thought control'?

How about Shami Chakrabati going on the Andrew Marr show to argue that the internet cannot “continue to be an ungoverned space”?

I don't think that is an idea that you can entirely pin on Shami Chakrabati. You'll have to explain how updating existing legislation to cover online publication amounts to 'thought control'

I'm not pinning it all on her, she's just part of a wider movement of people who want to limit free speech. Other examples would be university student unions attempting to "no platform" speakers like Peter Hitchens and George Galloway, its also the "Hacked Off" lot and things like Levenson. It's the salami slicer effect. Bit by bit is how they do it until suddenly we wake up one day and realise that certain opinions are suddenly not allowed, even in private.

I think you are muddling up two quite different things. I agree that the whole no platform thing is pretty ridiculous. If nothing else it deprives people of the opportunity to point and laugh at Galloway . That's quite a different thing from the suggestion that the rules that apply to publications should also apply equally to things posted on line on public forums. That's not infringing free speech, just holding online public discourse to the same standard as other media.

Well perhaps, we will have to see what rules they seek to enforce and how. It's worth remembering however that in 2012 Lord McAlpine used existing libel laws to successfully sue several Twitter users who had publicly defamed him. You seem to trivialise the no platform thing, but in conjunction with restrictions on the freedom of the press, the Prevent strategy, and unspecified proposals from the likes of Chakrabati to limit who can say what on the internet, doesn't it worry you that we're going to sleepwalk into totalitarianism?

ETA The hypocrisy of Chakrabati knows no bounds. Not content with sending her kids to 18k a year schools whilst singing the praises of the state system, she looked the other way on the anti semitism infesting her party in return for a peerage. Let's hope it's not her who's regulating what counts as hate speech on the internet.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

The attacks in New Zealand were terrible but the proposed liberal backlash on thought is symptomatic of liberal bedwetting

Care to explain what you mean? It sounds a bit like "yes, I think mass murder is bad, but on the other hand I like memes and getting people annoyed".

It means I think Mass Murder is bad but thought control is also bad.

If you want to live in a liberal democracy you either have a liberal democracy or you dont. That means that you will come accross views that are sometimes 180 degrees to yours.

Otherwise its a slippery slope to "liberal" totalitarianism.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by the 'proposed liberal backlash on thought' or 'thought control'?

How about Shami Chakrabati going on the Andrew Marr show to argue that the internet cannot “continue to be an ungoverned space”?

I don't think that is an idea that you can entirely pin on Shami Chakrabati. You'll have to explain how updating existing legislation to cover online publication amounts to 'thought control'

I'm not pinning it all on her, she's just part of a wider movement of people who want to limit free speech. Other examples would be university student unions attempting to "no platform" speakers like Peter Hitchens and George Galloway, its also the "Hacked Off" lot and things like Levenson. It's the salami slicer effect. Bit by bit is how they do it until suddenly we wake up one day and realise that certain opinions are suddenly not allowed, even in private.

I think you are muddling up two quite different things. I agree that the whole no platform thing is pretty ridiculous. If nothing else it deprives people of the opportunity to point and laugh at Galloway . That's quite a different thing from the suggestion that the rules that apply to publications should also apply equally to things posted on line on public forums. That's not infringing free speech, just holding online public discourse to the same standard as other media.

surely writing things online makes you liable under existing legislation regarding libel, incitement and court instructions?

Other media are publishers and get held to a higher standard because of their reach and resources. I vaguely remember some bizarre case where a US publisher (think NYT or WSJ) was sued for libel in a UK court and could prove that only about 12 people had read the online article. They lost but damages were peanuts.

It's a bit of a grey area. The likes of Facebook claim they are absolutely not publishers despite it being their algorithms that distribute what this or that person posts to a far wider audience than it would otherwise reach, while still thinking (or pretending) they are just chatting to their mates.

rjsterry

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

The attacks in New Zealand were terrible but the proposed liberal backlash on thought is symptomatic of liberal bedwetting

Care to explain what you mean? It sounds a bit like "yes, I think mass murder is bad, but on the other hand I like memes and getting people annoyed".

It means I think Mass Murder is bad but thought control is also bad.

If you want to live in a liberal democracy you either have a liberal democracy or you dont. That means that you will come accross views that are sometimes 180 degrees to yours.

Otherwise its a slippery slope to "liberal" totalitarianism.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by the 'proposed liberal backlash on thought' or 'thought control'?

How about Shami Chakrabati going on the Andrew Marr show to argue that the internet cannot “continue to be an ungoverned space”?

I don't think that is an idea that you can entirely pin on Shami Chakrabati. You'll have to explain how updating existing legislation to cover online publication amounts to 'thought control'

I'm not pinning it all on her, she's just part of a wider movement of people who want to limit free speech. Other examples would be university student unions attempting to "no platform" speakers like Peter Hitchens and George Galloway, its also the "Hacked Off" lot and things like Levenson. It's the salami slicer effect. Bit by bit is how they do it until suddenly we wake up one day and realise that certain opinions are suddenly not allowed, even in private.

I think you are muddling up two quite different things. I agree that the whole no platform thing is pretty ridiculous. If nothing else it deprives people of the opportunity to point and laugh at Galloway . That's quite a different thing from the suggestion that the rules that apply to publications should also apply equally to things posted on line on public forums. That's not infringing free speech, just holding online public discourse to the same standard as other media.

Well perhaps, we will have to see what rules they seek to enforce and how. It's worth remembering however that in 2012 Lord McAlpine used existing libel laws to successfully sue several Twitter users who had publicly defamed him. You seem to trivialise the no platform thing, but in conjunction with restrictions on the freedom of the press, the Prevent strategy, and unspecified proposals from the likes of Chakrabati to limit who can say what on the internet, doesn't it worry you that we're going to sleepwalk into totalitarianism?

No. Pretty much every time someone claims to not be allowed to say X anymore, they have literally just said X. In public. Without any consequences (beyond outing themselves as an idiot).

drlodge

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

The internet allow you to find like minded individuals with ease and minimises your exposure to the real world consequences of your views. If you went down the local pub or social club and started to spout the views that this guy was putting out on the internet then it would not be long before a kind hearted soul pointed out that your views were a bit messed up. It allows these individuals to get to a pent up state that literally their first social interaction is the act of violence and all those mini interventions people could have had in a direct conversation are lost.

Whilst you can argue for more responsible journalism I don't think you cannot report it. New Zealand will look to reduce consequence of idiots by using gun laws to reduce consequence. I would rather take a loon with fists over a couple of automatic weapons any day of the week.

I'd certainly agree that that is a large part of it, whichever form of extremism we're talking about. Reinforcing this is the more mainstream background hum of the false idea that there is some fundamental incompatibility between being a Muslim* and European (in its widest sense) culture. It's one of the things that both the far right and the Islamists agree on.

*or for that matter a Jew.

You are right that there is no fundamental problem with islam and the west as after all it is just a religion like many others. There is a issue that needs to be nipped in the bud by all sides regarding priority of beliefs versus laws. For example if you believe that your religion gives you the right to discriminate against others when the law clearly states otherwise then good luck to you conforming to western values. This is just one example where a religion may differ from a states laws.

Saying there is no fundamental problem with Islam is about as wrong as it gets, Islam is providing the ideology that drives ISIS.

The issues with these extremists is their ideology, we need to make that clear. To quote someone - the problem with an Islamic Fundamentalist are the fundamentals of Islam. You wouldn't have any issue with a Fundamentalist Jain.

rjsterry

drlodge wrote:

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

The internet allow you to find like minded individuals with ease and minimises your exposure to the real world consequences of your views. If you went down the local pub or social club and started to spout the views that this guy was putting out on the internet then it would not be long before a kind hearted soul pointed out that your views were a bit messed up. It allows these individuals to get to a pent up state that literally their first social interaction is the act of violence and all those mini interventions people could have had in a direct conversation are lost.

Whilst you can argue for more responsible journalism I don't think you cannot report it. New Zealand will look to reduce consequence of idiots by using gun laws to reduce consequence. I would rather take a loon with fists over a couple of automatic weapons any day of the week.

I'd certainly agree that that is a large part of it, whichever form of extremism we're talking about. Reinforcing this is the more mainstream background hum of the false idea that there is some fundamental incompatibility between being a Muslim* and European (in its widest sense) culture. It's one of the things that both the far right and the Islamists agree on.

*or for that matter a Jew.

You are right that there is no fundamental problem with islam and the west as after all it is just a religion like many others. There is a issue that needs to be nipped in the bud by all sides regarding priority of beliefs versus laws. For example if you believe that your religion gives you the right to discriminate against others when the law clearly states otherwise then good luck to you conforming to western values. This is just one example where a religion may differ from a states laws.

Saying there is no fundamental problem with Islam is about as wrong as it gets, Islam is providing the ideology that drives ISIS.

The issues with these extremists is their ideology, we need to make that clear. To quote someone - the problem with an Islamic Fundamentalist are the fundamentals of Islam. You wouldn't have any issue with a Fundamentalist Jain.

There are fundamentalists in pretty much all major religions and political dogma. Devise a system of beliefs and soon enough someone will be along to denounce you for not adhering to it with sufficient zeal.

bompington

rjsterry wrote:

drlodge wrote:

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

The internet allow you to find like minded individuals with ease and minimises your exposure to the real world consequences of your views. If you went down the local pub or social club and started to spout the views that this guy was putting out on the internet then it would not be long before a kind hearted soul pointed out that your views were a bit messed up. It allows these individuals to get to a pent up state that literally their first social interaction is the act of violence and all those mini interventions people could have had in a direct conversation are lost.

Whilst you can argue for more responsible journalism I don't think you cannot report it. New Zealand will look to reduce consequence of idiots by using gun laws to reduce consequence. I would rather take a loon with fists over a couple of automatic weapons any day of the week.

I'd certainly agree that that is a large part of it, whichever form of extremism we're talking about. Reinforcing this is the more mainstream background hum of the false idea that there is some fundamental incompatibility between being a Muslim* and European (in its widest sense) culture. It's one of the things that both the far right and the Islamists agree on.

*or for that matter a Jew.

You are right that there is no fundamental problem with islam and the west as after all it is just a religion like many others. There is a issue that needs to be nipped in the bud by all sides regarding priority of beliefs versus laws. For example if you believe that your religion gives you the right to discriminate against others when the law clearly states otherwise then good luck to you conforming to western values. This is just one example where a religion may differ from a states laws.

Saying there is no fundamental problem with Islam is about as wrong as it gets, Islam is providing the ideology that drives ISIS.

The issues with these extremists is their ideology, we need to make that clear. To quote someone - the problem with an Islamic Fundamentalist are the fundamentals of Islam. You wouldn't have any issue with a Fundamentalist Jain.

There are fundamentalists in pretty much all major religions and political dogma. Devise a system of beliefs and soon enough someone will be along to denounce you for not adhering to it with sufficient zeal.

Maybe true, but there is a lot of false equivalence here.

You may claim that the fundamentals of Islam don't require or even encourage terrorism - contestable, but at least a defensible view - but
a) it's a whole lot harder to read some religions' texts and then claim they don't advocate violence than others
and b) there's a whole lot more empirical evidence that some religions are getting used to justify violence than others.

rick_chasey

drlodge wrote:

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

The internet allow you to find like minded individuals with ease and minimises your exposure to the real world consequences of your views. If you went down the local pub or social club and started to spout the views that this guy was putting out on the internet then it would not be long before a kind hearted soul pointed out that your views were a bit messed up. It allows these individuals to get to a pent up state that literally their first social interaction is the act of violence and all those mini interventions people could have had in a direct conversation are lost.

Whilst you can argue for more responsible journalism I don't think you cannot report it. New Zealand will look to reduce consequence of idiots by using gun laws to reduce consequence. I would rather take a loon with fists over a couple of automatic weapons any day of the week.

I'd certainly agree that that is a large part of it, whichever form of extremism we're talking about. Reinforcing this is the more mainstream background hum of the false idea that there is some fundamental incompatibility between being a Muslim* and European (in its widest sense) culture. It's one of the things that both the far right and the Islamists agree on.

*or for that matter a Jew.

You are right that there is no fundamental problem with islam and the west as after all it is just a religion like many others. There is a issue that needs to be nipped in the bud by all sides regarding priority of beliefs versus laws. For example if you believe that your religion gives you the right to discriminate against others when the law clearly states otherwise then good luck to you conforming to western values. This is just one example where a religion may differ from a states laws.

Saying there is no fundamental problem with Islam is about as wrong as it gets, Islam is providing the ideology that drives ISIS.

The issues with these extremists is their ideology, we need to make that clear. To quote someone - the problem with an Islamic Fundamentalist are the fundamentals of Islam. You wouldn't have any issue with a Fundamentalist Jain.

A white right winger goes and shoots a load of Muslims dead for being Muslim and you’re banging on about how bad Islam is?

Sort your own logic out.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

The attacks in New Zealand were terrible but the proposed liberal backlash on thought is symptomatic of liberal bedwetting

Care to explain what you mean? It sounds a bit like "yes, I think mass murder is bad, but on the other hand I like memes and getting people annoyed".

It means I think Mass Murder is bad but thought control is also bad.

If you want to live in a liberal democracy you either have a liberal democracy or you dont. That means that you will come accross views that are sometimes 180 degrees to yours.

Otherwise its a slippery slope to "liberal" totalitarianism.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by the 'proposed liberal backlash on thought' or 'thought control'?

How about Shami Chakrabati going on the Andrew Marr show to argue that the internet cannot “continue to be an ungoverned space”?

I don't think that is an idea that you can entirely pin on Shami Chakrabati. You'll have to explain how updating existing legislation to cover online publication amounts to 'thought control'

I'm not pinning it all on her, she's just part of a wider movement of people who want to limit free speech. Other examples would be university student unions attempting to "no platform" speakers like Peter Hitchens and George Galloway, its also the "Hacked Off" lot and things like Levenson. It's the salami slicer effect. Bit by bit is how they do it until suddenly we wake up one day and realise that certain opinions are suddenly not allowed, even in private.

I think you are muddling up two quite different things. I agree that the whole no platform thing is pretty ridiculous. If nothing else it deprives people of the opportunity to point and laugh at Galloway . That's quite a different thing from the suggestion that the rules that apply to publications should also apply equally to things posted on line on public forums. That's not infringing free speech, just holding online public discourse to the same standard as other media.

surely writing things online makes you liable under existing legislation regarding libel, incitement and court instructions?

Other media are publishers and get held to a higher standard because of their reach and resources. I vaguely remember some bizarre case where a US publisher (think NYT or WSJ) was sued for libel in a UK court and could prove that only about 12 people had read the online article. They lost but damages were peanuts.

It's a bit of a grey area. The likes of Facebook claim they are absolutely not publishers despite it being their algorithms that distribute what this or that person posts to a far wider audience than it would otherwise reach, while still thinking (or pretending) they are just chatting to their mates.

You write a letter to the DM libeling somebody. Who do they sue, you, DM or WH Smith for distributing it.

FB and Google would argue they are WH Smith. They definitely are not the author but could be the publisher. Of course if WH Smith imported illegal magazines then they would be prosecuted.

shortfall

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

The attacks in New Zealand were terrible but the proposed liberal backlash on thought is symptomatic of liberal bedwetting

Care to explain what you mean? It sounds a bit like "yes, I think mass murder is bad, but on the other hand I like memes and getting people annoyed".

It means I think Mass Murder is bad but thought control is also bad.

If you want to live in a liberal democracy you either have a liberal democracy or you dont. That means that you will come accross views that are sometimes 180 degrees to yours.

Otherwise its a slippery slope to "liberal" totalitarianism.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by the 'proposed liberal backlash on thought' or 'thought control'?

How about Shami Chakrabati going on the Andrew Marr show to argue that the internet cannot “continue to be an ungoverned space”?

I don't think that is an idea that you can entirely pin on Shami Chakrabati. You'll have to explain how updating existing legislation to cover online publication amounts to 'thought control'

I'm not pinning it all on her, she's just part of a wider movement of people who want to limit free speech. Other examples would be university student unions attempting to "no platform" speakers like Peter Hitchens and George Galloway, its also the "Hacked Off" lot and things like Levenson. It's the salami slicer effect. Bit by bit is how they do it until suddenly we wake up one day and realise that certain opinions are suddenly not allowed, even in private.

I think you are muddling up two quite different things. I agree that the whole no platform thing is pretty ridiculous. If nothing else it deprives people of the opportunity to point and laugh at Galloway . That's quite a different thing from the suggestion that the rules that apply to publications should also apply equally to things posted on line on public forums. That's not infringing free speech, just holding online public discourse to the same standard as other media.

Well perhaps, we will have to see what rules they seek to enforce and how. It's worth remembering however that in 2012 Lord McAlpine used existing libel laws to successfully sue several Twitter users who had publicly defamed him. You seem to trivialise the no platform thing, but in conjunction with restrictions on the freedom of the press, the Prevent strategy, and unspecified proposals from the likes of Chakrabati to limit who can say what on the internet, doesn't it worry you that we're going to sleepwalk into totalitarianism?

No. Pretty much every time someone claims to not be allowed to say X anymore, they have literally just said X. In public. Without any consequences (beyond outing themselves as an idiot).

I don't share your complacency. University students are the politicians, judges, and opinion formers of the future. If they grow up in an era where speakers have to sign free speech contracts before they address students or they can be "no platformed" for what they say and think rather than what they do, then they will never hear opposing opinions and the accepted orthodoxy of the day will never be challenged.

john80

drlodge wrote:

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

The internet allow you to find like minded individuals with ease and minimises your exposure to the real world consequences of your views. If you went down the local pub or social club and started to spout the views that this guy was putting out on the internet then it would not be long before a kind hearted soul pointed out that your views were a bit messed up. It allows these individuals to get to a pent up state that literally their first social interaction is the act of violence and all those mini interventions people could have had in a direct conversation are lost.

Whilst you can argue for more responsible journalism I don't think you cannot report it. New Zealand will look to reduce consequence of idiots by using gun laws to reduce consequence. I would rather take a loon with fists over a couple of automatic weapons any day of the week.

I'd certainly agree that that is a large part of it, whichever form of extremism we're talking about. Reinforcing this is the more mainstream background hum of the false idea that there is some fundamental incompatibility between being a Muslim* and European (in its widest sense) culture. It's one of the things that both the far right and the Islamists agree on.

*or for that matter a Jew.

You are right that there is no fundamental problem with islam and the west as after all it is just a religion like many others. There is a issue that needs to be nipped in the bud by all sides regarding priority of beliefs versus laws. For example if you believe that your religion gives you the right to discriminate against others when the law clearly states otherwise then good luck to you conforming to western values. This is just one example where a religion may differ from a states laws.

Saying there is no fundamental problem with Islam is about as wrong as it gets, Islam is providing the ideology that drives ISIS.

The issues with these extremists is their ideology, we need to make that clear. To quote someone - the problem with an Islamic Fundamentalist are the fundamentals of Islam. You wouldn't have any issue with a Fundamentalist Jain.

Remove Islam and they would just find some other bat shit crazy logic to follow. Remember when the Catholic Church officials were playing with children. When they were caught they were forgiven as that was the teachings of their religion. In this case they collectively put their religious views above the interests of the children, future children and the laws and societal norms of the country they were residing at the time.

In reality you would have to remove all religion from society to achieve what you want and then you are left with the laws of the country you reside in. Do as to others as you would have done to you and all this type of preaching that is throughout all religions. It is not such a bad thing albeit when we start getting into tribes this is when it gets messy as history has shown. I don't personally have a problem with people believing in all sorts of made up stuff however I only have a problem when they cannot integrate into the society in which they live and wish to overrule laws which were democratically put in place by said society. Teach people how to critically think and analyse information as we currently do in schools and they are less likely to be lulled into extreme mindsets.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

The attacks in New Zealand were terrible but the proposed liberal backlash on thought is symptomatic of liberal bedwetting

Care to explain what you mean? It sounds a bit like "yes, I think mass murder is bad, but on the other hand I like memes and getting people annoyed".

It means I think Mass Murder is bad but thought control is also bad.

If you want to live in a liberal democracy you either have a liberal democracy or you dont. That means that you will come accross views that are sometimes 180 degrees to yours.

Otherwise its a slippery slope to "liberal" totalitarianism.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by the 'proposed liberal backlash on thought' or 'thought control'?

How about Shami Chakrabati going on the Andrew Marr show to argue that the internet cannot “continue to be an ungoverned space”?

I don't think that is an idea that you can entirely pin on Shami Chakrabati. You'll have to explain how updating existing legislation to cover online publication amounts to 'thought control'

I'm not pinning it all on her, she's just part of a wider movement of people who want to limit free speech. Other examples would be university student unions attempting to "no platform" speakers like Peter Hitchens and George Galloway, its also the "Hacked Off" lot and things like Levenson. It's the salami slicer effect. Bit by bit is how they do it until suddenly we wake up one day and realise that certain opinions are suddenly not allowed, even in private.

I think you are muddling up two quite different things. I agree that the whole no platform thing is pretty ridiculous. If nothing else it deprives people of the opportunity to point and laugh at Galloway . That's quite a different thing from the suggestion that the rules that apply to publications should also apply equally to things posted on line on public forums. That's not infringing free speech, just holding online public discourse to the same standard as other media.

surely writing things online makes you liable under existing legislation regarding libel, incitement and court instructions?

Other media are publishers and get held to a higher standard because of their reach and resources. I vaguely remember some bizarre case where a US publisher (think NYT or WSJ) was sued for libel in a UK court and could prove that only about 12 people had read the online article. They lost but damages were peanuts.

It's a bit of a grey area. The likes of Facebook claim they are absolutely not publishers despite it being their algorithms that distribute what this or that person posts to a far wider audience than it would otherwise reach, while still thinking (or pretending) they are just chatting to their mates.

You write a letter to the DM libeling somebody. Who do they sue, you, DM or WH Smith for distributing it.

FB and Google would argue they are WH Smith. They definitely are not the author but could be the publisher. Of course if WH Smith imported illegal magazines then they would be prosecuted.

The DM if they choose to publish it. If they put it in the bin. Nobody has libelled anyone.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

The attacks in New Zealand were terrible but the proposed liberal backlash on thought is symptomatic of liberal bedwetting

Care to explain what you mean? It sounds a bit like "yes, I think mass murder is bad, but on the other hand I like memes and getting people annoyed".

It means I think Mass Murder is bad but thought control is also bad.

If you want to live in a liberal democracy you either have a liberal democracy or you dont. That means that you will come accross views that are sometimes 180 degrees to yours.

Otherwise its a slippery slope to "liberal" totalitarianism.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by the 'proposed liberal backlash on thought' or 'thought control'?

How about Shami Chakrabati going on the Andrew Marr show to argue that the internet cannot “continue to be an ungoverned space”?

I don't think that is an idea that you can entirely pin on Shami Chakrabati. You'll have to explain how updating existing legislation to cover online publication amounts to 'thought control'

I'm not pinning it all on her, she's just part of a wider movement of people who want to limit free speech. Other examples would be university student unions attempting to "no platform" speakers like Peter Hitchens and George Galloway, its also the "Hacked Off" lot and things like Levenson. It's the salami slicer effect. Bit by bit is how they do it until suddenly we wake up one day and realise that certain opinions are suddenly not allowed, even in private.

I think you are muddling up two quite different things. I agree that the whole no platform thing is pretty ridiculous. If nothing else it deprives people of the opportunity to point and laugh at Galloway . That's quite a different thing from the suggestion that the rules that apply to publications should also apply equally to things posted on line on public forums. That's not infringing free speech, just holding online public discourse to the same standard as other media.

surely writing things online makes you liable under existing legislation regarding libel, incitement and court instructions?

Other media are publishers and get held to a higher standard because of their reach and resources. I vaguely remember some bizarre case where a US publisher (think NYT or WSJ) was sued for libel in a UK court and could prove that only about 12 people had read the online article. They lost but damages were peanuts.

It's a bit of a grey area. The likes of Facebook claim they are absolutely not publishers despite it being their algorithms that distribute what this or that person posts to a far wider audience than it would otherwise reach, while still thinking (or pretending) they are just chatting to their mates.

You write a letter to the DM libeling somebody. Who do they sue, you, DM or WH Smith for distributing it.

FB and Google would argue they are WH Smith. They definitely are not the author but could be the publisher. Of course if WH Smith imported illegal magazines then they would be prosecuted.

The DM if they choose to publish it. If they put it in the bin. Nobody has libelled anyone.

could be argued you libelled somebody to the DM Letters Editor - would be small damages

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

You may claim that the fundamentals of Islam don't require or even encourage terrorism - contestable, but at least a defensible view - but
a) it's a whole lot harder to read some religions' texts and then claim they don't advocate violence than others
and b) there's a whole lot more empirical evidence that some religions are getting used to justify violence than others.

Genuinely surprised at this, Bompington. The way you tell it its a wonder I haven't been murdered by my colleagues. Islamist terrorism is probably the most prominent religiously motivated variety at the moment, but they certainly don't have a monopoly and their influence is falling while incidence of far-right terrorism is increasing.

drlodge

john80 wrote:

Remove Islam and they would just find some other bat shoot crazy logic to follow. Remember when the Catholic Church officials were playing with children. When they were caught they were forgiven as that was the teachings of their religion. In this case they collectively put their religious views above the interests of the children, future children and the laws and societal norms of the country they were residing at the time.

That may be so, but it is a matter fact that Islamic terrorism is driven by...Islam. Go back in time and it would be the Christians that were causing mayhem and bloodshed. The behaviours of ISIS can be plausibly explained by the wording of the Quran.

Right wing extremism is on the rise for sure, and its just a repugnant. Unless an ideology or religion fundamentally has love as its core principle, then any extremism is going to end up in violence.

shirley_basso

Like Islam, then?

robert88

drlodge wrote:

john80 wrote:

Remove Islam and they would just find some other bat shoot crazy logic to follow. Remember when the Catholic Church officials were playing with children. When they were caught they were forgiven as that was the teachings of their religion. In this case they collectively put their religious views above the interests of the children, future children and the laws and societal norms of the country they were residing at the time.

That may be so, but it is a matter fact that Islamic terrorism is driven by...Islam. Go back in time and it would be the Christians that were causing mayhem and bloodshed. The behaviours of ISIS can be plausibly explained by the wording of the Quran.

Right wing extremism is on the rise for sure, and its just a repugnant. Unless an ideology or religion fundamentally has love as its core principle, then any extremism is going to end up in violence.

How far back in time?
1917 Balfour declaration
1948 Palestine war
1979 Soviet invasion, Afghanistan
2001 US invasion of Afghanistan
2003 Coalition invasion of Iraq

drlodge

Robert88 wrote:

How far back in time?
1917 Balfour declaration
1948 Palestine war
1979 Soviet invasion, Afghanistan
2001 US invasion of Afghanistan
2003 Coalition invasion of Iraq

I was referring to the Crusades.

rjsterry

drlodge wrote:

john80 wrote:

Remove Islam and they would just find some other bat shoot crazy logic to follow. Remember when the Catholic Church officials were playing with children. When they were caught they were forgiven as that was the teachings of their religion. In this case they collectively put their religious views above the interests of the children, future children and the laws and societal norms of the country they were residing at the time.

That may be so, but it is a matter fact that Islamic terrorism is driven by...Islam. Go back in time and it would be the Christians that were causing mayhem and bloodshed. The behaviours of ISIS can be plausibly explained by the wording of the Quran.

Right wing extremism is on the rise for sure, and its just a repugnant. Unless an ideology or religion fundamentally has love as its core principle, then any extremism is going to end up in violence.

What's your view on militant Buddhism in Sri Lanka, Thailand and Myanmar? Or The Terror in 18th century France? I mean Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité and the birth of a secular state sounds great, but they still ended up chopping a lot of heads off.

Alejandrosdog

Rick Chasey wrote:

drlodge wrote:

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

The internet allow you to find like minded individuals with ease and minimises your exposure to the real world consequences of your views. If you went down the local pub or social club and started to spout the views that this guy was putting out on the internet then it would not be long before a kind hearted soul pointed out that your views were a bit messed up. It allows these individuals to get to a pent up state that literally their first social interaction is the act of violence and all those mini interventions people could have had in a direct conversation are lost.

Whilst you can argue for more responsible journalism I don't think you cannot report it. New Zealand will look to reduce consequence of idiots by using gun laws to reduce consequence. I would rather take a loon with fists over a couple of automatic weapons any day of the week.

I'd certainly agree that that is a large part of it, whichever form of extremism we're talking about. Reinforcing this is the more mainstream background hum of the false idea that there is some fundamental incompatibility between being a Muslim* and European (in its widest sense) culture. It's one of the things that both the far right and the Islamists agree on.

*or for that matter a Jew.

You are right that there is no fundamental problem with islam and the west as after all it is just a religion like many others. There is a issue that needs to be nipped in the bud by all sides regarding priority of beliefs versus laws. For example if you believe that your religion gives you the right to discriminate against others when the law clearly states otherwise then good luck to you conforming to western values. This is just one example where a religion may differ from a states laws.

Saying there is no fundamental problem with Islam is about as wrong as it gets, Islam is providing the ideology that drives ISIS.

The issues with these extremists is their ideology, we need to make that clear. To quote someone - the problem with an Islamic Fundamentalist are the fundamentals of Islam. You wouldn't have any issue with a Fundamentalist Jain.

A white right winger goes and shoots a load of Muslims dead for being Muslim and you’re banging on about how bad Islam is?

Sort your own logic out.

why would a white supremacist nutter mean that he should not mention the murderous intent of Islam? thats the sort of comment that smacks of PC dogma.

shirley_basso

Does Islam have murderous intent?

Or is it more like this:

john80 wrote:

Remove Islam and they would just find some other bat shoot crazy logic to follow. Remember when the Catholic Church officials were playing with children. When they were caught they were forgiven as that was the teachings of their religion. In this case they collectively put their religious views above the interests of the children, future children and the laws and societal norms of the country they were residing at the time.

In reality you would have to remove all religion from society to achieve what you want and then you are left with the laws of the country you reside in. Do as to others as you would have done to you and all this type of preaching that is throughout all religions. It is not such a bad thing albeit when we start getting into tribes this is when it gets messy as history has shown. I don't personally have a problem with people believing in all sorts of made up stuff however I only have a problem when they cannot integrate into the society in which they live and wish to overrule laws which were democratically put in place by said society. Teach people how to critically think and analyse information as we currently do in schools and they are less likely to be lulled into extreme mindsets.

It's evil people using an religion to justify their actions and then indoctrinating others, not that religion made them do it.

robert88

drlodge wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

drlodge wrote:

john80 wrote:

Remove Islam and they would just find some other bat shoot crazy logic to follow. Remember when the Catholic Church officials were playing with children. When they were caught they were forgiven as that was the teachings of their religion. In this case they collectively put their religious views above the interests of the children, future children and the laws and societal norms of the country they were residing at the time.

That may be so, but it is a matter fact that Islamic terrorism is driven by...Islam. Go back in time and it would be the Christians that were causing mayhem and bloodshed. The behaviours of ISIS can be plausibly explained by the wording of the Quran.

Right wing extremism is on the rise for sure, and its just a repugnant. Unless an ideology or religion fundamentally has love as its core principle, then any extremism is going to end up in violence.

How far back in time?
1917 Balfour declaration
1948 Palestine war
1979 Soviet invasion, Afghanistan
2001 US invasion of Afghanistan
2003 Coalition invasion of Iraq

I was referring to the Crusades.

Yes I know but I wondered why more recent history had conveniently escaped from your memory?

drlodge

Shirley Basso wrote:

Does Islam have murderous intent?

Or is it more like this:

john80 wrote:

Remove Islam and they would just find some other bat shoot crazy logic to follow. Remember when the Catholic Church officials were playing with children. When they were caught they were forgiven as that was the teachings of their religion. In this case they collectively put their religious views above the interests of the children, future children and the laws and societal norms of the country they were residing at the time.

In reality you would have to remove all religion from society to achieve what you want and then you are left with the laws of the country you reside in. Do as to others as you would have done to you and all this type of preaching that is throughout all religions. It is not such a bad thing albeit when we start getting into tribes this is when it gets messy as history has shown. I don't personally have a problem with people believing in all sorts of made up stuff however I only have a problem when they cannot integrate into the society in which they live and wish to overrule laws which were democratically put in place by said society. Teach people how to critically think and analyse information as we currently do in schools and they are less likely to be lulled into extreme mindsets.

It's evil people using an religion to justify their actions and then indoctrinating others, not that religion made them do it.

No its not. Its people having a real belief in the scripture of Islam, truly believing in a literal reading of the scripture. You should go read the Dabiq Magazine, which is ISIS's magazine http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/314_DIR ... ateYou.pdf

1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you.

rick_chasey

drlodge wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Does Islam have murderous intent?

Or is it more like this:

john80 wrote:

Remove Islam and they would just find some other bat shoot crazy logic to follow. Remember when the Catholic Church officials were playing with children. When they were caught they were forgiven as that was the teachings of their religion. In this case they collectively put their religious views above the interests of the children, future children and the laws and societal norms of the country they were residing at the time.

In reality you would have to remove all religion from society to achieve what you want and then you are left with the laws of the country you reside in. Do as to others as you would have done to you and all this type of preaching that is throughout all religions. It is not such a bad thing albeit when we start getting into tribes this is when it gets messy as history has shown. I don't personally have a problem with people believing in all sorts of made up stuff however I only have a problem when they cannot integrate into the society in which they live and wish to overrule laws which were democratically put in place by said society. Teach people how to critically think and analyse information as we currently do in schools and they are less likely to be lulled into extreme mindsets.

It's evil people using an religion to justify their actions and then indoctrinating others, not that religion made them do it.

No its not. Its people having a real belief in the scripture of Islam, truly believing in a literal reading of the scripture. You should go read the Dabiq Magazine, which is ISIS's magazine http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/314_DIR ... ateYou.pdf

1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you.

Do you also read far right white supremacist literature?

Or only ISIS literature?

What proportion of Muslims do you think have read that Isis magazine?

bompington

drlodge wrote:

You should go read the Dabiq Magazine, which is ISIS's magazine http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/314_DIR ... ateYou.pdf

1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you.

TBF, that's the interpretation of a small minority of Muslims.

The point I was trying to make, mind you, is that you have to indulge in some major exegetical gymnastics to interpret that out of the Koran; whereas you have to work pretty hard to twist anything in the bible into the Crusades, even if many have tried.

shirley_basso

Plus it doesn't support your point, it supports mine.

It's evil people using an religion to justify their actions and then indoctrinating others, not that religion made them do it.

Islamic religious texts are by and large peaceful, with exceptions, just like the Bible - although thinking about it, the Bible is actually pretty barbaric.

drlodge

Rick Chasey wrote:

Do you also read far right white supremacist literature?

Or only ISIS literature?

What proportion of Muslims do you think have read that Isis magazine?

I don't see how those questions are at all relevant to the topic. I'm simply showing the root cause of the Jihadist ideology. I'm sure there are documents out there somewhere that show the root cause of the white supremacist ideology. Perhaps you'd care to look for them?

All these extremist actions stem from an ideology.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

drlodge wrote:

You should go read the Dabiq Magazine, which is ISIS's magazine http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/314_DIR ... ateYou.pdf

1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you.

TBF, that's the interpretation of a small minority of Muslims.

The point I was trying to make, mind you, is that you have to indulge in some major exegetical gymnastics to interpret that out of the Koran; whereas you have to work pretty hard to twist anything in the bible into the Crusades, even if many have tried.

I mean, it’s not like Europeans haven’t found any number of other excuses to commit awful atrocities.

drlodge

Shirley Basso wrote:

Plus it doesn't support your point, it supports mine.

It's evil people using an religion to justify their actions and then indoctrinating others, not that religion made them do it.

Islamic religious texts are by and large peaceful, with exceptions, just like the Bible - although thinking about it, the Bible is actually pretty barbaric.

Nonsense. All 3 of the Abrahamic religions are violent in their texts, the Old testament is about as bad as it gets but we don't have a problem with extremist Jews either at the present time. Jainism is about the only truly peaceful religion. I'd happily welcome an extremist Jain into my house.

Islam has not gone through a reformation, that's the big difference between it and the other two.

rick_chasey

drlodge wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Do you also read far right white supremacist literature?

Or only ISIS literature?

What proportion of Muslims do you think have read that Isis magazine?

I don't see how those questions are at all relevant to the topic. I'm simply showing the root cause of the Jihadist ideology. I'm sure there are documents out there somewhere that show the root cause of the white supremacist ideology. Perhaps you'd care to look for them?

All these extremist actions stem from an ideology.

They’re relevant because you might then see that all societies have their nutters who will hang their hat on whatever ideology gives them some external justification for their internal issues and in the context of this thread, your banging on about ISIS seems to be missing that rather relevant point.

After all, this was a mass terrorist attack by a white supremacist on Muslims. Right? Why doesn’t that preoccupy you but ISIS does?