The Courier‘s Jenny Hjul is on the right side. She knows the Hate Crime Bill (Scotland) needs to be opposed:
The SNPâs Hate Crime Bill seems to have created a rare consensus in Scotland, with just about everybody agreeing that it is at best naĂŻve and at worst plain dangerous.
She leads with the point of principle:
The Justice Minister, Humza Yousaf, said the Scottish Government was aiming for zero tolerance of hate crime, which is increasing in Scotland. The problem with his new law, however, is that in trying to make bad people nicer it will also potentially make good people villains.
She deftly follows up with the practical point that the proposed Scottish bill is wider in scope than the equivalent law in England and Wales:
If passed, the bill will criminalise those judged to have spoken abusively or offensively, and could imprison them for up to seven years. It goes further than similar laws in England and Wales, where intent has to be established for a person to be criminalised for their behaviour.
Later in the article Ms Hjul points out that Nicola Sturgeon’s proposed new law is opposed by experts, including those who might be expected to have some personal sympathy with her:
Alistair Bonnington, former honorary professor of law at Glasgow University â and Nicola Sturgeonâs one-time lecturer â slammed the legislation as âdaftâ as well as naĂŻve.
âThis is yet another example of the SNPâs failure to understand fundamental principles of Scots law,â he said this week, referencing other instances of âstupidityâ, such as the Named Persons legislation and the âoutstandingly idioticâ law forbidding sectarian singing at football matches, which was later rescinded.
âFundamental human rights freedoms, such as free speech, are not understood or respected by the Scottish government,â he said.
Finally Ms Hjul correctly observes that the bill is so hated that even sworn enemies have come together to denounce it, and furthermore that the police, often suspiciously keen on the sort of policing that can be done in comfort via a screen, do not fancy enforcing this one at all:
Among those who agree with him are the Law Society of Scotland, the Catholic Church â which fears the bill would criminalise possession of the Bible, the National Secular Society, and the Scottish Police Federation, which warned that the legislation would see officers policing speech.
But Ms Hjul undoes much of the good work she has done by the following ill-judged foray:
Perhaps the SNPâs Hate Crime Bill might have achieved more support if it had sought to target a specific Scottish problem: the spreaders of hate in its own movement, for example.
If it could stifle once and for all the most toxic elements of Scottish nationalism and make stirring up hatred of unionists a crime, it might not be a complete waste of time. But that is a political perspective.
I have no doubt she did not literally mean that the Hate Crimes Bill would be acceptable if only it also targeted hate among Scottish Nationalists. It was probably meant as an exasperated joke. The trouble is that those two sentences turn off those she most needs to convince: people who usually support the Scottish National Party but are troubled by this and other authoritarian measures the SNP have put forward. It is this group who Sturgeon’s government are most likely to listen to.
Humza Yousaf?
Och, aye! There’s a good Scots name!
Does the N on SNP stand for NationalSocialist?
He could just as well be called Jock McSporran for all the difference it would make.
The fact is there is no shortage of eager commissars who want to advance the cause of Scottish National Socialism. The whole creed is based on hatred of the English, and some of its founders were, in the 1940s, literal supporters of the Nazi Party.
As to doubts by the police, forget ’em. The Scots Nazis have nationalised “Police Scotland” and have total control of its senior apparatchiki, a necessary precondition for the establishment of a one party state.
I remember a few years back the SNP decided they would use new powers stupidly given to them by Westminster and introduce airgun licencing. The police chiefs at the time were against the idea, too much work for no real affect on crime etc. Sensible arguments, but the law passed and now they enforce it with relish. You generally find that if you pass police state laws the police tend, on the whole, to approve. If this latest attempt to stifle free speech by the SNP passes, “Police Scotland” will enforce it with equal relish.
One wonders if the SNP will endorse an addendum to the law that specifically calls out hatred of English people. After hating Catholics or Proddies, I think that is the principle type of hate speech I remember in Scotland.
(Though I think it is quite legitimate to call out the fact that mentioning the 1966 World Cup in a Glasgow bar is definitely hate speech, and well deserving of a good spanking.)
I don’t understand why the 1966 World Cup hasn’t become an embarrassment to England football fans by now. “We won the cup”. Oh yes, so you did, once, fifty four effing years ago.
While Natalie is correct that Jenny’s phrasing does not prevent misunderstanding – which, when the ‘hate speech’ commissars are on patrol, is (even more) prudent to avoid – Jenny’s point is a good one, and not just as an exasperated joke. The natz will have to enforce their new law even more arbitrarily than Labour did if they are to avoid jailing many of their own members.
Of course, these members are not blessed with self knowledge. If courts and/or Westminster (and/or, in the end, their own un-admitted second thoughts) ultimately prevent this obscenity from happening, they will still say the wicked unwoke English prevented social justice in Scotland and add that to their post-independence paradisal vision – and be believed by many. đ
Hate crime is increasing in Scotland by what measure? If you redefine behaviour that previously was considered innocuous as âhate crimeâ, then that behaviour will now become âhate crimeâ so tte claim of increase can be made to justify the tyranny.
Just as if you lower the alcohol limit for breathalyser testing, then you will get more drivers who fail the breathalyser test, which then justifies demands for lower limits.
Currently increased testing for antibodies and RNA fragments for coronaviruses will increase the number found, thereby justifying escalating the tyranny, particularly if âpositive testsâ are conflated with âcasesâ which mean hospital admissions, a tiny fraction of those who test positive.
Scum are always believed by many. The question is –will they be enough?
Stonyground (August 6, 2020 at 6:54 am), the point is that the English usually qualify and often get some distance, whereas Scotland often fails to qualify – and it’s arguably even more embarrassing on the rare occasions when we do. I can still remember 1984’s loud prolonged all-over-Scotland “We’re going to Argentina!” – swiftly followed by the somewhat quieter “We’re coming back from Argentina” after the first round was more humiliating than not-being-there would have been.
(As chance would have it, I also remember watching England versus Argentina in that year while surrounded by soldiers in a Salisbury Plain barracks. đ IIRC – I may not, as circumstances did not let me watch all – it was a reasonably clean game, albeit relatively unexciting. I suspect both teams had been read the riot act by their coaches beforehand.)
Thanks for publicising this.
I have written to the Courier in support of Jenny Hjul’s article and arguing the case more strongly than she managed to.
Hjul is right to raise the issue of the overtly racist elements in the nationalist movement, but, as you point out, wrong with where she takes it. What she should have pointed out is the inevitability of differential enforcement. If the authorities don’t like you then they will stretch the legislation to nail you, but if they do, because, for example, you are a Scot Nat outrider, then the law strangely doesn’t apply.
Incidentally, the non-application of the prohibition of political uniforms under s1 of the Public Order Act 1936 in Brixton last Saturday is a classic example of differential enforcement. The same section has twice been used successfully in recent years against leading members of the white extremist group Britain First.
You get what you vote for – so I assume this is wildly popular on the street in Jockistan.
As an aside, the detail would appear to outlaw Islam. Read the Koran, understand the Pillar of Islam that is Jihad, or Dhimmitude, and realise the religion itself not just the Koran would qualify as ‘Hate’.
It will of course pass, and the politician scum get exactly what they wanted – a law that is wide open to interpretation and enables the police to arrest anyone when it is convenient.
Jihad is not one of the 5 pillars of Islam.
Dhimmitude is the condition of non-muslims who accept their subjugation in an Islamic state.
I loathe Islam.
There is no difference in basic PRINCIPLE between the legislation proposed in Scotland and existing or proposed legislation in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The principle of Freedom of Speech was rejected long ago in these islands – the Scottish Government are just taking the principles of tyranny to their logical conclusion, the Scots having a logical culture that takes principles (good or BAD) to their logical conclusion.
Opposition to the proposed legislation on the basis that it takes good principles too far, reminds me of the pathetic people who bleated on (decades ago) about “Political Correctness gone mad” – the conceded the basic principle, and just argued over detailed (and so lost – and DESERVED to lose).
If someone says “I agree with what you are trying to do, but I disagree with this or that detail” they are wasting their time, and wasting the time of everyone else.
For these are not good principles gone wrong – these are EVIL principles (the principles of Herbert “Repressive Tolerance” Marcuse and other Marxists) turned into laws.
A supporter of Freedom of Speech says with Voltaire – “I DESPISE what you say – but I will defend, to-the-death, your right to say it”.
Is anyone in a leading role in the British Isles going to say that?
Of course NOT – so the battle is lost before it even starts.
“But Paul – in England and Wales the authorities can not send you to prison for seven years without proving your INTENT to be racist”.
Wait a while – they will have the power to do that eventually.
And “intent” is not the issue – the issue is the right to say “hateful” things and MEAN them.
A right that is no longer believed in by the authorities.
The same authorities that pretend to venerate such people as Winston Churchill when they would have actually sent-them-to-prison for such things as reading out parts of the book “The River War”.
What did Argentina host in ’84?
Niall, don’t you mean the England-Argentina game with the “Hand of God” moment? If so, not exactly what I think of as clean.
In Argentina a radio show person, on a privately owned station, mocked a feminist.
A JUDGE involved themselves – insisting that the radio show host put the feminist on his show, ask her pre written questions (nothing challenging) and not be critical of feminism at time – or EVER IN THE FUTURE.
So much for Freedom of Speech in Argentina.
The Frankfurt School of Marxism is not confined to a few countries – it dominates much of the world.
Bodies such as the, utterly vile, “Conservative” Central Office are the NORM – not the exception.
It is hard, very hard, to have any hope left.
Plamus – that we my thought. I immediately suspected Niall “Scottish” Kilmartin of somewhat “tongue in cheek” piss-taking of us English (in which case, I raise a glass to him. Fair play! “Clean” indeed, and so on)
However, the “Hand Of God” incident was in 86, not 84.
And, further, in Mexico, not Argentina.
Niall has an eidetic memory, I believe. If not literally, then in all practical senses, he might as well have. I don’t believe he’s made a mistake here, but a google search brings up nothing for 1984 (I was a 7 year old. I think 1986 cured me of any devotion towards the footie!!)
Links please, Paul. Not just proclamations.
Argentina is not…unproblematic. And has not been for several decades. To decry “freedom of speech” in Argentina, of all places, is to ignore several decades, including the Disappearances, and is incredibly insensitive. You know nothing of Argentina.
What, you thought they were a perfect free-market economy that has in recent years been infested by your “Frankfurt School”? That’s extraordinarily reductive, and ignores Peronism, Kirchnerism et al, let alone the 70s and 80s.
Returning to Samizdata after an unusually long absence (very demanding week of work deadlines), I greatly appreciate the encomium – but am also embarrassed by it, since I was guilty of a typo and then misplacing the typo-ed date in an ill-written recast of the comment (and then, of course, being called into a work crisis that meant I did not notice for days đ ).
1) As people noted, 1984 should have been 1986 as regards England-Argentina. Apologies for wasting time of any checkers.
2) While recasting the comment, I pasted the 1984 date instead of the correct one as regards Scotland in Argentina. Scotland went to the world cup in Argentina in 1978. I quote a wikipedian summary:
Although we’ve qualified eight times, never getting beyond the first round of the finals, 1978 was peculiarly embarrassing, as Scotland imagined it had a chance for once – and, as usual, talked it up for all it was worth. đ
I’d better also apologise for causing an off-topic thread – except that I suppose the natz desire to police football chants means it isn’t that off topic. đ
Paul, allow me to say that you don’t know what you are talking about.
What you are saying might yet come to pass, but, so far, i am seeing a pattern: countries in which “”far””-“”right””, “”xenophobic””, anti-immigration and pro-integration parties have been in government, at any time in the last 10 years or so, even as junior partners (and that includes much of Europe) still have freedom of speech.
In addition to that: Frankfurt Marxism does not seem to “dominate” Japan, China, or Muslim countries. In fact, they seem to despise us for taking it seriously.
This sentence from neonsnake well placed for non-sequitur of the decade!
You think? For decades, they’ve been disappearing people for being on the “wrong” side of politics. It’s not like they’ve had Freedom Of Speech for decades, and this was the point at which a glorious tradition was lost.
Niall also has a vocabulary that occasionally leads me to a swift google search…
Neonsnake:
1. It’s still a non-sequitur.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Argentinians have not had freedom of speech “for decades”. It does not follow that there is nothing wrong with denying it to them now.
2. In addition, there is your bullshitting. (In the technical sense.)
Disappearing people has been a practice in Argentina only during the Dirty War, which i learn from wikipedia lasted from 1976 to 1983. It did not last “for decades”, and it ended decades ago.
Oh yes, there were intermittent periods of military rule before 1976, but i’d think it likely that there was still more freedom of speech in Argentina (except perhaps between 1976 and 1983) than there is in the UK today — although, even if there wasn’t, you are bullshitting anyway.
“Itâs still a non-sequitur. Letâs assume for the sake of argument that Argentinians have not had freedom of speech âfor decadesâ. It does not follow that there is nothing wrong with denying it to them now.”
I don’t think he said there was nothing wrong with denying it to them now. I think he was just observing that denial of free speech in Argentina is not a new innovation that never would have happened without the Frankfurt School.
In Argentina a radio show person, on a privately owned station, mocked a feminist.
There’s a bit more to it than that. In Argentina there’s currently a big problem with sexual harassment and rape of young women, that’s stirred up a lot of public anger. (Think about the way we reacted to the Rotherham scandal.) Recently, a 21 year old girl Micaela Garcia got kidnapped, raped, and strangled, and there was a lot of media fuss. As part of the debate around it, it was mentioned she herself had been a supporter of a campaign organisation fighting for social changes as the result of the earlier murder of a 14 year old girl Chiara Paez, found beaten to death and several weeks pregnant under her boyfriend’s patio. Etchecopar’s commentary on the rape case and the issue of the sexual assault of minors in general was stuff like âThe problem is provocation, because it isnât by chance that so many rapists have suddenly appeared. Before, no young girl came out showing her ass.â and âIf your 12-year-old daughter comes out showing her tits, with tattoos, and blowing a kiss… sheâs being provocative.â 8 pages of it.
We’re not talking about the sort of ‘Gender Studies’ Feminist who goes on about skyscrapers being too phallic and history books being too full of men. We’re talking about the sort of Feminist who thinks you can’t excuse raping and murdering a teenager by in effect saying she wore a short skirt and thus was ‘asking for it’. (Think ‘Rotherham’, right?) If you classify the latter version of Feminism as exclusively Frankfurt School, then I think a lot of people would say they support the Frankfurt School. ‘Feminism’ in Argentina is not quite the same thing as ‘Feminism’ over here.
That’s not to say that I approve of laws restricting free speech – even speech justifying or excusing the rape and murder of young girls. I’m just noting that disapproval of such speech isn’t purely a Marxist position, or evidence of a Marxist takeover.
A JUDGE involved themselves â insisting that the radio show host put the feminist on his show, ask her pre written questions (nothing challenging) and not be critical of feminism at time â or EVER IN THE FUTURE.
It’s not quite true that the judge involved themselves. He got prosecuted for it. That always involves a judge. In this case, he came forward expressing remorse and volunteered to do something to fix the harm done, out of which discussions the judge offered a deal where they suspended the prosecution in exchange for him giving 10 minutes per show for 5 months to the campaign against sexual violence and harassment of women, and zero tolerance of the same sort of stuff on the show for a 1-year probationary period. In the sense that the law is still on the books, you could say the ban on doing it again is indefinite, but that’s nothing at all to do with the judge.
The unusual terms of the sentence were made by voluntary agreement, and to present the other side of the debate. It could have been far worse.
Indeed; and that it’s an odd place to draw the line, to say “this far and no further” (especially having just looked into the specifics of the incident).
Quelle surprise. I suspected that “man mocks feminist” in Argentina wouldn’t be along the lines of “look at this silly woman complaining about skyscrapers”, but would more along the lines of “look at this silly woman complaining about women being raped and murdered”. Thanks for confirmation.
(Oh, as for the disappearances, tell the family of Alberto Nisman that they came to an end in the 80s. There’s also controversy of the deaths of Rafael Nahuel and Santiago Maldonado. I’m already wildly off-topic, so I won’t go into specifics, but will invite interested parties to google them)
“Indeed; and that itâs an odd place to draw the line, to say âthis far and no furtherâ”
Whether it’s odd depends on the motivation for drawing the line. Are we defending free speech for everyone, even views we despise, or are we only defending free speech for people expressing views like our own?
Someone who wants the freedom to criticise feminists would obviously be concerned to see newspaper headlines of a radio presenter prosecuted for criticising feminists. But it’s the attack on anti-feminism that concerns them, not the attack on free speech.
That’s understandable, of course. One naturally gets many authoritarian converts to liberty once society finally turns on them. But it’s not true repentance unless they take the additional step from fighting for their own liberty to fighting for everyone’s. That’s the hard part.
I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
In England in e.g. the year 1630 AD say, if the daughter of the great house ran off with the footman, the family might well socially ‘cut’ her, i.e. cut off her inheritance and no longer invite her to family events (see, for example, the film ‘Kind Hearts and Coronets’ đ ). In Spain in the same year 1630, it would have been thought unsurprising for the family to hunt down and kill both parties – which in England at that time was treated as murder by the law and startling by the public, were it to have happened. (This is covered in, for example, Christine Wedgewood’s review of distinctive features of England before the civil war in The King’s Peace.)
English-language culture differed very significantly from Spanish-language culture long ago. Cultures derived from them continue to differ now. Thus, as regards,
I too see restricting freedom as a typically counter-productive solution to many an issue, and as regards,
I’d mention those whose reasons for opposing illegal immigration from south of the Rio Grande include the fact that it obstructs immigrants assimilating to the superior English-derived culture established to the north of it.
This has an obvious analogy to those who similarly dislike illegal immigration from Arab cultures into the UK, given the even greater cultural differences.
It is usually the marxists who are all for such immigration. đ
So I take Nullius’ point here.
I’m not as black and white on this as you are, I suspect, Nullius.
I’m totally fine with people defending the speech of those they despise. But, and this is a big “but”, I only believe it if they caveat it with “I despise this view”. If they don’t, I immediately assume that they agree with the view that they’re defending.
In the current example, that of the “Ni Una Menos”, in Argentina, it’s obvious that the view espoused by Senor Etchecopar is pretty gross. He’s arguing (and I spent an amount of time looking in to this today) for not just victim-blaming, but arguably inciting of violence against women. I’ll stress the “arguably”, because it’s important, but still: be clear. I think the guy is, uh, “wrong”.)
Again, it’s normally obvious when someone is doing the “I despise what you say” thing. They say so. You said so. It’s obvious that you despise what he said, and rightly so.
Paul Marks did not do so – he presented just one side, with no further links, nor explanations. Just a “Man mocks feminist, is ordered by judge to behave” narrative, and decided to omit the context.
I know you know this, Nullius, so I’m not really talking to you, so much as anyone who is following on. But: Context Matters.
Feminism in South America (I only have experience of Argentina and Brazil) is not the same as it is in the UK. To believe so, as per Paul Mark’s comment, is either naive, or dishonest. At best it’s reductive. At worst, well, I’ll let you imagine how anyone with morals might react to the “She’s asking for it” trope. I’m sure the girls from Rotheram were also “Asking for it”.
(might be time for you to start exploring thick vs thin libertarianism, Nullius)
Paul Marks appears to have more of problem with a racist, sexist, violence-inciting person like Etchheopcar being asked to behave, than he does with the sort of things that Etchheopcar is supporting. He has no problem with what the guy is saying. He’d have said so. But he didn’t, he instead put out there that the major issue is not that women in Argentina are routinely degraded, raped and murdered – no, the big issue is when men are critisized for denying it.
Paul is obviously fine with women being raped, degraded, murdered. What he’s not fine with is when men are accused of being fine with this, and this what gets his gander up.
Great ju-jitsu from Niall in turning the words of Nullius and neonsnake into an argument against immigration!
–in reply to Nullius:
In view of the fact that Paul never claimed that denial of free speech in Argentina is a new thing, that is either an extravagant spin on what neonsnake wrote, or else accurately shows that neonsnake grossly misunderstood what Paul wrote.
But thank you for the background.
You might be aware that i am convinced that we are all delusional, because we are all brain damaged, because we all ate a modern Western diet while growing up.
As a consequence, i blame Paul’s misunderstandings on his particular delusions.
On this particular issue, you seem to be less delusional than Paul.
–neonsnake:
Thank you for the info, but that just confirms to me that you are delusional when you say that there has not been freedom of speech in Argentina “for decades”.
First, we are talking about 3 people. (And 2 of them were not even “disappeared”.) You are minimizing the Dirty War when you compare the extra-judicial killing of 3 people (in over 3 decades) to disappearances on an industrial scale during the Dirty War.
Second, none of the 3 died because of speech crimes. I am not sure how many disappeared during the Dirty War because of speech crimes, either. Could be none of them: why waste police resources in disappearing people who make subversive jokes?
I still think it likely that, on the balance, there is less freedom of speech in the UK today than there has been in Argentina for decades.
I’m not. I have reasons not to, that you’re unaware of, albeit that I appreciate that I won’t change your mind, though.
Paul made a proclamation with zero context. I stand by my statement that Paul’s problem was that people were not being “allowed” to be “anti-feminist”, and that he would be satisfied with women’s free speech being shut down, including their complaints that they can be murdered, raped, degraded with impunity. If he did not believe that to be true, he’d have said so. His problem, the thing that agitates him, is not that women are routinely murdered, raped, degraded. His problem is that people complain about it.
You have a lot to learn about freedom of speech!
You know perfectly well you do not believe this, neonsnake.
Paul has sometimes himself made overly strong statements about those he disagrees with in these threads – though not, I think, ever quite as overly strong as that. đ
There are many reasons why, as Burke pointed out, people speaking on an issue should not be treated as if reading a lecture on the subject in which everything possible was to be said. One is because they suspect cancel culture will take the microphone from them after their first sentence. Another is because (like me about football recently), they’re in a hurry or get distracted, so don’t review the comment and check sources. Another is because an issue – a limit on free speech for example, or the treatment of women in Argentina – is such a hot button one that the commenter rushes to comment without taking a moment to check context or allow cooler second thoughts.
I am grateful for the context later comments have provided in the Argentine case.
The dirty war is long over but I was told just last week by a friend who had seen it that some mothers still gather in the plaza and still leave their scarves in it – and some still hope their disappeared will reappear (young children placed with other families very occasionally have done).
I’m most flattered, but will remark, just for completeness, that, firstly, I was arguing more to inform than for victory, and secondly that Paul’s name could accompany Nullius’ and neonsnake’s in your welcome comment, since Paul was implying a marxist motivation for dissenting whereas it seemed, from my broader take on it, that other motivations were possible – motivations that were not bad in themselves.
“Iâm totally fine with people defending the speech of those they despise. But, and this is a big âbutâ, I only believe it if they caveat it with âI despise this viewâ. If they donât, I immediately assume that they agree with the view that theyâre defending.”
It depends on which battle you’re fighting. If you’re making it clear that free speech is the issue, it shouldn’t matter which side of the other debate you’re on, and it tends to cloud the issue. People wind up arguing about the other debate, rather than free speech.
The thing that bugs me about this sort of thing is that when people speak up for free speech for positions they clearly support, it’s hard to tell whether they’re really making an argument for the principle of free speech, or only for their own speech to be free. It makes a difference to the effectiveness of the argument, especially when you never see them arguing for free speech for positions they don’t support.
Mentioning explicitly that you despise the position whose free speech you are arguing for makes it a more powerful argument. It makes it clear you are talking about the principle. And that makes it far more likely that you can persuade people who despise you to support your free speech. But one needs to be careful to keep it in the background if you don’t want to derail the topic off our joint support for freedom and onto which of us is most despicable.
Of course, if freedom isn’t the main issue you care about, none of the above applies.
“In the current example, that of the âNi Una Menosâ, in Argentina, itâs obvious that the view espoused by Senor Etchecopar is pretty gross.”
He’s what people call a “shock jock”. He attracts a bigger audience by shocking them with extreme, outrageous, and controversial views. It’s what he sells, it’s part of his act, and I’d not take it for granted that he even holds those views himself.
“Paul Marks did not do so â he presented just one side, with no further links, nor explanations. Just a âMan mocks feminist, is ordered by judge to behaveâ narrative, and decided to omit the context.”
Almost certainly Paul didn’t know about the context – he’d not have used it as an example if he had. I’d wager Paul had just seen the headlines and the outrage-memes doing the rounds on the right-wing clickbait circuit, it confirmed his preconceptions, so he looked no further. Classic confirmation bias.
And lots of people are clueless about Argentinian culture and current affairs.
Paul has plenty of odd beliefs, but I wouldn’t for a moment think that of him.
“Great ju-jitsu from Niall in turning the words of Nullius and neonsnake into an argument against immigration!”
My thought on it was “Classic ‘Group A Group B Trick’!” But I saw no point in arguing the point. I’ve said it many times before.
If you’re going to keep people who don’t support free speech out of the country, then make that the condition. Don’t substitute a different one and pretend that’s not what you’re really about. Because there are plenty of natives born-and-bred who don’t believe in free speech, either.
“You might be aware that i am convinced that we are all delusional, because we are all brain damaged, because we all ate a modern Western diet while growing up.”
Mmm. Not a belief I share. But I’ll say no more. đ
I don’t know that I do, Niall.
I try not to, I honestly do. I truly try hard to.
But I see this, and I waver. I’m trying not to be dishonest, not to try to “present both sides” when it’s obvious that the other side it totally gross. But this is really bad. Took me seconds of googling to find the context.
It’s, well, it’s not good. What Paul said is really bad.
Of course. I do not believe that Paul did not know the context. I believe he saw it, and chose to ignore it. Of course, many people are ignorant of Argentinian affairs. But…it only takes secconds. Sadly. I believe that.
Please remember, I’ve spent months worrying about Paul. The only two people who have expressed concern about the fella, are you and me, Niall. I know he doesn’t like it, that I do so, , that I worry about the bloke ,but I can’t help that. I am what I am
NiV, it’s really not difficult. Those who are actually doing so *always* make the point that they despise the position.
If they don’t, you can pretty much assume that they agree with it.
99%, it really is that simple, mate. Sorry, man.
If they’re not actively making the point that they disagree, then it mean they agree. Come on. You know this.
“Took me seconds of googling to find the context.”
But you *chose* to Google. Not everybody does.
It’s one of the most common sources of bias. If you’re told something you already know, you would never think to check it. If you’re told something contrary to your preconceptions, or that you’re pretty sure is wrong, you check.
“If theyâre not actively making the point that they disagree, then it mean they agree. Come on. You know this.”
Nope. I don’t. đ I have, for example, often spoken up for freedom of belief for authoritarian religions without feeling the need to say I’m an atheist and it’s all obviously nonsense.
The usual reason for making a point of saying you despise the position is when it is counter to strongly enforced social norms and you particularly don’t want to be identified as a member or supporter of that particular out-group. Sometimes that matters, and sometimes it doesn’t.
So there are groups I particularly despise but society at large doesn’t, thus there’s no particular danger in being identified as a supporter, and it becomes a distraction to make a point of it. Sometimes you’re talking to people who themselves hold the belief, who you particularly want to persuade and so don’t want to alienate. Sometimes they’re a friend you don’t want to lose by starting an argument with. Or they’re your boss, or work colleague. Sometimes you do it to make a rhetorical point – I pick a position I know *you* support and talk about its freedom of speech, as a persuasive device. We both know I only mentioned the subject because of *your* belief in it, it says nothing whatever about my own. Sometimes you want to make a particular point of not feeling you have to defend yourself with disclaimers to be allowed to say something controversial. Sometimes you’re speaking in circumstances where there’s no risk of being misunderstood.
And sometimes we just have to edit out the extraneous caveats for the sake of clarity and brevity. Perhaps not as often as I should, you uderstand! But it does happen.
[…] when a Bill allows as much scope for abuse as does the Hate Crime Bill (Scotland). People from all quarters of politics have seen the danger and come together to oppose […]