It's official: Brexit is Here

[Lavendel]

Doesn't everyone discuss what interests them? Surely we can come to terms with the fact that people will have views which don't agree with our own.

Can you imagine EW suggesting someone should be banned for expressing pro-immigration views? On the level of personal acceptance here in this forum, EW is more accepting and tolerant of forum members, than many other members.


That's a hateful thing to say. Ie. You just posted hate speech; but I don't reject you for it.


Compelling.

Definition of hate speech: Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.

Is democracy really not taught in school any more? No it's not hate speech to point it out. But saying blatantly racist things is.

 

[Elegant Winter]

Definition of hate speech: Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.

Is democracy really not taught in school any more? No it's not hate speech to point it out. But saying blatantly racist things is.

So you're saying if I link a study that shows Sub-Saharan Africans are twenty times more likely to rape than Swedes that's hate speech? If so, the Swedish government is guilty of hate speech because they published that study.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

It's funny to talk about accepting and coming to terms with people who have different views on an internet board, but then advocating not tolerating those views (mainstream Islam, or basically just being a black person, which isn't a view at all!) irl.

I'm not advocating a ban either.

Islam is not a person.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Definition of hate speech: Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.

Is democracy really not taught in school any more? No it's not hate speech to point it out. But saying blatantly racist things is.

You're re-defining words to excuse certain verbal expressions of hate.

 

[Lavendel]

You're re-defining words to excuse certain verbal expressions of hate.

I can't really do much about the dictionary defintion.

 

[Elegant Winter]

It's funny to talk about accepting and coming to terms with people who have different views on an internet board, but then advocating not tolerating those views (mainstream Islam, or basically just being a black person, which isn't a view at all!) irl.

I'm not advocating a ban either.

I introduce relevant information to the discussion and come to conclusions using basic reasoning. I say nothing about individual blacks or whites. I talk about averages, themes, patterns, etc. Should that kind of information be banned? Of course not.

 

[acd]

Islam is not a person.

No shit!

 

[Asa]

I introduce relevant statistics/studies/research to the discussion and come to conclusions using basic reasoning. I say nothing about individual blacks or whites. I talk about averages, themes, patterns, etc. Should that kind of information be banned? Of course not.

Actually, most of what you've posted across the forum is opinion and hyperbole.

 

[Elegant Winter]

Actually, most of what you've posted across the forum is opinion and hyperbole.

I also share my thoughts and feelings, yes, but when I'm talking about controversial racial issues there is always information behind what I'm saying.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I can't really do much about the dictionary defintion.

The dictionary isn't making hateful posts about actual forum members. Semantics are your justification for expressing hate?

Hate speech is two words, the definition of which do not support your "reasoning." The legal definition of hate speech is what you are using, but that definition is different, or even non-existent in each juridical territory.

 

[Krypton]

Actually, most of what you've posted across the forum is opinion and hyperbole.

Read earlier in the thread.

Usually, he provides links. Perhaps they're sort of the stepping stones rather than the best pieces on these issues, but I've seen those sorts of charlatans, and he isn't one.

At worse, you can make the argument that some of his references to stuff like Cologne are anecdotes and not fit to be considered real evidence. That still leaves every other point made.

 

[brightmoon]

Sorry anecdotes are not evidence. Even if the Swedish government did a study that states men from sub-Saharan African are more likely to be rapists that does not mean you get to draw the conclusion that group is disposed to that behaviour because of their nationality or religion. Does the study compare "apples to apples" that is native born Swedes and immigrants of same socio-economic backgrounds. A casual internet search on this over 20 year old study reveals it did not, so other factors come into play. But you can find some dusty study to support any position you want to take that doesn’t mean its good and valid evidence.

 

[Elegant Winter]

Sorry anecdotes are not evidence. Even if the Swedish government did a study that states men from sub-Saharan African are more likely to be rapists that does not mean you get to draw the conclusion that group is disposed to that behaviour because of their nationality or religion. Does the study compare "apples to apples" that is native born Swedes and immigrants of same socio-economic backgrounds. A casual internet search on this over 20 year old study reveals it did not, so other factors come into play. But you can find some dusty study to support any position you want to take that doesn’t mean its good and valid evidence.

It was good enough for the Swedish government, but not brightmoon.

 

[brightmoon]

Hate speech is two words, the definition of which do not support your "reasoning." The legal definition of hate speech is what you are using, but that definition is different, or even non-existent in each juridical territory.

Are you advocating a right to unfettered speech because no universal definition of hate speech can be agreed upon? Sounds like weak logic to me.

Advocating the inherent superiority of one race (and I say again there is no such thing as race, it doesn't exist as a scientific term to classify human beings, its a social construct) or nationality cannot be supported by any evidence or argument that I've ever encountered.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Are you advocating a right to unfettered speech because no universal definition of hate speech can be agreed upon? Sounds like weak logic to me.

Advocating the inherent superiority of one race (and I say again there is no such thing as race, it doesn't exist as a scientific term to classify human beings, its a social construct) or nationality cannot be supported by any evidence or argument that I've ever encountered.

Read the dialogue in the thread. It will hopefully clarify your confusion. If it doesn't, perhaps you could ask someone to guide you through the posts.

 

[Skarekrow]

[video=youtube;iAgKHSNqxa8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgKHSNqxa8[/video]


[video=youtube;nh0ac5HUpDU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh0ac5HUpDU[/video]​

 

[Elegant Winter]

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]

Nice vulgar and disgusting propaganda there, buddy! You should apologize to every participant of this thread for posting something so revolting.

 

[brightmoon]

Read the dialogue in the thread. It will hopefully clarify your confusion. If it doesn't, perhaps you could ask someone to guide you through the posts.

I'm not at all confused, just unimpressed by the quality of your argument attacking the concept of hate speech.

 

[brightmoon]

Going back to Brexit. Now the "emperor has no clothes" and extent of the fraud perpetuated on the British people is becoming clear.

Exhibit A The slogan on the "Brexit Battle Bus"

Nigel Farage admitted it was a “mistake” for the Leave campaign to pledge that the weekly £350 million saving in EU contributions could be spent on the NHS instead.

You can listen to the back-pedalling here http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...um-brexit-350-nhs_uk_576d0aa3e4b08d2c5638fc17

Pathetic really.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I'm not at all confused, just unimpressed by the quality of your argument attacking the concept of hate speech.

If that is what you think is going on, the only thing I can suggest, again, is that you read the posts on this thread.

I can't help you connect dots, if you won't try. You're connecting non existent dots.

Going back to Brexit. Now the "emperor has no clothes" and extent of the fraud perpetuated on the British people is becoming clear.

Exhibit A The slogan on the "Brexit Battle Bus" View attachment 28241

Nigel Farage admitted it was a “mistake” for the Leave campaign to pledge that the weekly £350 million saving in EU contributions could be spent on the NHS instead.

You can listen to the back-pedalling here http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...um-brexit-350-nhs_uk_576d0aa3e4b08d2c5638fc17

Pathetic really.

How many people, out of the millions that voted, do you think actually saw a single bus, let alone noticed its slogan, and were actually influenced by it?

What are the compelling reasons for Britain to remain in the EU?