Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 19 2026 03:20 Introvert wrote: I guess even if it was just "crass antisemitism" I still don't think it should carry criminal penalties. I prefer the American standard the Supreme Court has endorsed in recent decades: direct incitement and libel.
Sure, because I'm not 13 years old I don't find edgy jokes from people who use names like "Count Dankula" to be very funny (not that I did but I know those that did) but I have to ask who is deciding that?
-truncated the quotes for brevity, hopefully you don't feel it takes away from what you're saying.-
Let's assume we agree that free speech should not be absolute. If that's the case, -someone- has to decide what's a joke and what's crass antisemitism. Ideally there would be some overarching structure that 'polices' these things, that they're not heavyhanded or authoritarian about it, they enact it fairly for all parties*, and criticism/debate regarding this institution is allowed to flow freely.
In the case of sir dankula, is that not what we see? Dude got fined 800 bucks for toeing the line of antisemitism to an audience, and there's been plenty of criticism and debate about whether or not it was a case of impinging someone's free speech. That seems like a soft slap on the wrist and has led to plenty of debate (apparently) over whether or not that's where the line should be drawn. It certainly didn't seem to ruin Dankula either personally or professionally.
Assuming you're not a free speech absolutist, who do you think should have governance over speech?
*Caveat being I expect there's reasonable claim that the 'fairly for all parties' isn't necessarily fulfilled and there's probably fair debate in that regard. I wouldn't be surprised if there's evidence of someone saying "death to white men" or something in a youtube video to a few thousand people, and that person not having been fined / whatever.
I think a lot of society is vibe coded, truly. And we're getting to a point where the vibe coding isn't cutting it anymore because we're divided into two (or more) camps that have drawn lines in the sand that we just will not cross. When does a collection of sand grains become a pile is a very difficult question to get right when every faction is being tribalized about where the cutoff is.
Comedians are constantly dancing the line between "crass" and bigoted. That is part of their appeal.
Jerry Seinfeld's comedy show was 10 years of making fun of jews and no one batted an eyelash. The male cast were all jewish and they were all self centred, self absorbed, lazy pricks. And don't tell me Michael Richards isn't jewish. Just look at a picture of him in the 80s.
"i didn't lift any weights ... i just sat in the Sauna you know... more like a jewish work out" "did you hear the one about the Rabbi and the farmer's daughter"
If he'd trained a dog to raise a paw when he said "heil" then I don't think we're in hate speech territory. The issue is nothing to do with the dog, that's a completely misleading framing that right wingers invented so that they could feel persecuted. It's part of the "you can't even make a joke anymore" cinematic universe in which workplace health and safety has gone mad.
The Sheriff who handed down the ruling specified exactly what the guy did wrong as he made the ruling. He literally declared it on record. I found it with a very simple google.
Fining Meechan £800, the sheriff told him: "The centrepiece of your video consists of you repeating the phrase 'Gas the Jews' over and over again"
Instead of listening to the guy issuing the fine explain why he issued the fine they come up with this entirely fabricated narrative about how this was a Nazi dog prank on his woke girlfriend gone wild gone wrong police called don't forget to like and subscribe.
On March 19 2026 06:26 KwarK wrote: If he'd trained a dog to raise a paw when he said "heil" then I don't think we're in hate speech territory. The issue is nothing to do with the dog, that's a completely misleading framing that right wingers invented so that they could feel persecuted. It's part of the "you can't even make a joke anymore" cinematic universe in which workplace health and safety has gone mad.
The Sheriff who handed down the ruling specified exactly what the guy did wrong as he made the ruling. He literally declared it on record. I found it with a very simple google.
Fining Meechan £800, the sheriff told him: "The centrepiece of your video consists of you repeating the phrase 'Gas the Jews' over and over again
Instead of listening to the guy issuing the fine explain why he issued the fine they come up with this entirely fabricated narrative about how this was a Nazi dog prank on his woke girlfriend gone wild gone wrong police called don't forget to like and subscribe.
Not only that - the argument originally being brought up was talking about arrests - and then the person bringing that false fact into discussion accused others of gaslighting. Absolute nonsense
Trump congratulated Venezuala's win over the USA at the World Baseball Classic by inviting them to become America's 51st state. Perhaps Canada can be the USA's 52nd state?
On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think count dankula being fined was stupid.
So it's just you with this opinion, since the rest are currently being dismissed as fringe hypocrites. Do you have any thoughts on why it's just you?
Wombat also stated that he thought it was stupid.
I think many posters argue against people's posting history or against the associated beliefs of various statements or beliefs and I think this is negative. I believe the thread would be better if people did less of this. I think I stay clear of this because I've clearly expressed my opinion on many different issues and I think people know that I am significantly more critical of Trump's freedom of speech infringements than I am of count dankula being fined, even if I also think the latter was stupid. Meanwhile Introvert and Oblade generally tend to be a bit vague in their criticisms of Trump (not saying they're both always supportive) but much more explicit in their critique of 'the other', and with how difficult it can be to get a straight answer out of either, a hostile culture has developed over time.
I like baal but he's a bit old school and can be abrasive.
I don’t want to touch these old grudges with a ten foot pole. I’m seeing what it makes people say.
I gave Wombat a separate response before your post, and you can check it out. My presumption is you’d view the cops visiting Dankula to rebuke him with a formal warning as also stupid, but I’m biased towards my own opinion.
On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think count dankula being fined was stupid.
So it's just you with this opinion, since the rest are currently being dismissed as fringe hypocrites. Do you have any thoughts on why it's just you?
I mean it’s not just Drone, I believe I posted to that effect too. Me memory ain’t quite what it used to be.
It seems a general springboard into other adjacent areas, I’d be curious as to the thoughts on some posters on this very specific case and the specific censure handed out. Perhaps a poll is in order
Anyway, yeah, I felt it at the time, I feel it perhaps more strongly now. It feels like some of those who see the wisdom in some kind of censure for hate speech and what have you in various domains kinda can get to a point where they just can’t concede a singular thing is daft.
As if maintaining an overall position but conceding that Count Bloody Dankula’s situation was a bit daft, is somehow weakening a hand or something.
Which then ends up with folks going ‘oh this is lunacy’ and getting drawn right into the very pipelines folks like me would rather people stay clear of.
Granted I’m spitballing about how I recall this in my particular sphere, at the actual time and to some degree subsequently more in general rather than commenting on the dynamics of the thread.
The fine itself was “pretty ridiculous” or a “bit daft,” but the police should drop by to “giv[e] him a ticking off and an informal/formal warning.” You’re cramming in a lot of nuance above state action and short of a fine, but perhaps that’s also what Drone meant and he’d like the cops to rebuke him with a formal warning.
I don't want to involve the police at all. I interpreted this as an attempt at being funny, not that he's trying to camouflage his antisemitic tendencies. Being cringeworthy while trying to be funny should have the punishment of people thinking you're lame or an idiot, not being fined. There can be exceptions if the attempted humor basically consists of harassment of an individual but this is more like, 'this is funny because it is offensive' - to find it amusing hinges upon finding it offensive.
I was reminded of this video - which made me laugh when I was first exposed to it 14 years ago. Definitely didn't think this guy was a pedophile.
Anyway - I get that this can be difficult, because I'm definitely not a free speech absolutionist, even if I'm to some degree a free speech in comedy absolutionst. There is a line, though - I think if he taught his dog to do nazi salutes while saying gas the jews in front of a jewish person (and where this wasn't part of a skit where the offensiveness of doing just this is why it's considered funny but rather as a way of harassing a jewish person) then there's a solid case for fining him. And I'm sure you can find examples where determining whether something is 'attempted comedy' or 'harassment' is going to be genuinely difficult.
In Norway, one of our most loved comedians (he's been involved in some of the funniest stuff I've ever seen) was in a very public trial because he had, while shitfaced drunk, harassed a somalian lady he met in some club, started talking english to her - got 'I speak Norwegian' as a response, yelled 'SHUT THE FUCK UP' in her face and followed up with 'you are way too black to be here'. She pressed charges, accusing him of hateful speech and reckless behavior. He profusely apologized, said he was drunk and tried to be funny - and was acquitted. At the same time, another Norwegian tv-personality (sort of a comedian too, but less defined as such) also had a public incident where he was at a bar, was shitfaced drunk, started doing some nazi-impersonation, was told 'you're too drunk to be here and you have to leave' by a black bouncer, responded with 'Do you think you, A NEGRO, can tell me what I can and cannot do'? He, on the other hand was fined $1500 coupled with an 18 day suspended sentence.
I wouldn't have thought it was stupid if the first comedian got the same punishment - these two imo constitute harassment, and being drunk isn't an excuse. Or - in a way - being drunk can be an excuse from the 'is this person a piece of shit'?- perspective - because I don't actually think he's a racist. (my opinion here is informed by the fact that his long-time comedic partner is black, and this partner said that while his behavior was completely idiotic and unacceptable, he absolutely did not think he had racist intentions). However, being drunk is not an excuse in terms of not being punished by the law for your actions.
I don't think you can develop hard and fast rules for instances like these. Context, intent, history, are all reasons why the same statement or action can/should result in legal action in one case and not in another.
On March 19 2026 06:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Comedians are constantly dancing the line between "crass" and bigoted. That is part of their appeal.
Jerry Seinfeld's comedy show was 10 years of making fun of jews and no one batted an eyelash. The male cast were all jewish and they were all self centred, self absorbed, lazy pricks. And don't tell me Michael Richards isn't jewish. Just look at a picture of him in the 80s.
Don't you think it's different if Jews are the ones writing the jokes about themselves, as opposed to other groups punching down at Jews?
On March 19 2026 06:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Comedians are constantly dancing the line between "crass" and bigoted. That is part of their appeal.
Jerry Seinfeld's comedy show was 10 years of making fun of jews and no one batted an eyelash. The male cast were all jewish and they were all self centred, self absorbed, lazy pricks. And don't tell me Michael Richards isn't jewish. Just look at a picture of him in the 80s.
Don't you think it's different if Jews are the ones writing the jokes about themselves, as opposed to other groups punching down at Jews?
Seinfeld covers that territory in the video. Whatley goes for complete joke telling immunity by joining a different religion and then moving to Poland. Whatley had been a Jew for 1 day and he was already running around telling Jewish jokes. Jerry was quite upset about it. Elaine thought it was hilarious.
What is funny is... people would've went bonkers had the word "k*k*" ever been uttered. But, its OK for George Costanza, George Steinbrenner and Jerry Seinfeld to be a waste of skin adding nothing of value to human society. I really loved the ending of the show where George and Jerry ended the TV Series in jail due to their disdain for all humanity. It was rather fitting.
As far as that individual episode goes, the point Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David were making in plot of that episode is that it is ridiculous that non-jews can't make jewish jokes.
On March 19 2026 06:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Comedians are constantly dancing the line between "crass" and bigoted. That is part of their appeal.
Jerry Seinfeld's comedy show was 10 years of making fun of jews and no one batted an eyelash. The male cast were all jewish and they were all self centred, self absorbed, lazy pricks. And don't tell me Michael Richards isn't jewish. Just look at a picture of him in the 80s.
Don't you think it's different if Jews are the ones writing the jokes about themselves, as opposed to other groups punching down at Jews?
Seinfeld covers that territory in the video. Whatley goes for complete joke telling immunity by joining a different religion and then moving to Poland. Whatley had been a Jew for 1 day and he was already running around telling Jewish jokes. Jerry was quite upset about it. Elaine thought it was hilarious.
What is funny is... people would've went bonkers had the word "k*k*" ever been uttered. But, its OK for George Costanza, George Steinbrenner and Jerry Seinfeld to be a waste of skin adding nothing of value to human society. I really loved the ending of the show where George and Jerry ended the TV Series in jail due to their disdain for all humanity. It was rather fitting.
As far as that individual episode goes, the point Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David were making in plot of that episode is that it is ridiculous that non-jews can't make jewish jokes.
So Jerry says yes and Elaine doesn't care, but I didn't ask them. What do you think?
On March 19 2026 06:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Trump congratulated Venezuala's win over the USA at the World Baseball Classic by inviting them to become America's 51st state. Perhaps Canada can be the USA's 52nd state?
I wonder if they are aware that there are a lot of brown people in Venezuela.
On March 19 2026 03:20 Introvert wrote: I guess even if it was just "crass antisemitism" I still don't think it should carry criminal penalties. I prefer the American standard the Supreme Court has endorsed in recent decades: direct incitement and libel.
Sure, because I'm not 13 years old I don't find edgy jokes from people who use names like "Count Dankula" to be very funny (not that I did but I know those that did) but I have to ask who is deciding that?
-truncated the quotes for brevity, hopefully you don't feel it takes away from what you're saying.-
Who is deciding that?
Let's assume we agree that free speech should not be absolute. If that's the case, -someone- has to decide what's a joke and what's crass antisemitism. Ideally there would be some overarching structure that 'polices' these things, that they're not heavyhanded or authoritarian about it, they enact it fairly for all parties*, and criticism/debate regarding this institution is allowed to flow freely.
In the case of sir dankula, is that not what we see? Dude got fined 800 bucks for toeing the line of antisemitism to an audience, and there's been plenty of criticism and debate about whether or not it was a case of impinging someone's free speech. That seems like a soft slap on the wrist and has led to plenty of debate (apparently) over whether or not that's where the line should be drawn. It certainly didn't seem to ruin Dankula either personally or professionally.
Assuming you're not a free speech absolutist, who do you think should have governance over speech?
*Caveat being I expect there's reasonable claim that the 'fairly for all parties' isn't necessarily fulfilled and there's probably fair debate in that regard. I wouldn't be surprised if there's evidence of someone saying "death to white men" or something in a youtube video to a few thousand people, and that person not having been fined / whatever.
I think I said my reply that my standards are incitement and libel. If you are harassing a Jewish person and shout "gas that jew!" you should at least get a polite visit from law enforcement. If you go a random forum or YouTube and do the equivalent of wave your hands and vaguely and say "gas the Jews" then no, I wouldn't fine you. So yes, there is a line. But I guess to tie this back to being anonymous, I would say the line is so far back that I would prefer we let the crazed bigots speak anonymously than try to reveal eveyone for the sake of bringing criminal charges against people.
On March 18 2026 14:20 Fleetfeet wrote: I could go either way on it having been prosecuted tbh, though it still has nothing to do with anonymity given that he wasn't fucking trying to be anonymous.
It's very clear now that anybody making edgy jokes or discussing sensitive topics that could be considered hatespeech in the UK should use anonymity to protect themselves
It's like if I took a video of myself, well-lit and clear, of me shitting on a police car. I then posted that to my personal youtube video, which obviously has my personal information attached to it. I then get charged with vandalism despite me giggling the entire time I shit on the car, and then whine about internet anonymity as though me filming myself committing a crime should be protected by... who the fuck knows.
False equivalency, shitting on a clear cut crime, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
We have nothing to discuss not because you have insight into my position, but because you refuse to clarify your position on how it's about anonymity at all. I'm sure if count dankula wanted to make cutting commentary about his country's politics, he could do just that without fear of reprisal even without trying to remain anonymous. That's probably why he was charged for the hate crime stuff, and not whining about scotland stuff.
We have nothing to discuss if you don't believe that constitutes freedom of speech because that is the purpose of online anonymity, so we won't have a productive discussion if we don't agree on first principles.
No kidding, that's my point.
There's freedom of speech.
There's internet anonymity.
They are separate things. In case you'd forgotten, YOU are the one citing it as an anonymity issue. My analogy is showing that it isn't, because -crime- isn't what you want to protect with anonymity, it's -freedom of speech-.
You're coming in after my car analogy and saying "Well if the youtube account you posted it to was anonymous and you had covered your face, then the government wouldn't figure out it was you and couldn't come after you for shitting on a cop car. Anyone in the UK who wants to shit on a cop car had better do it anonymously, or they might suffer consequences."
No kidding. What you SHOULD be arguing is the legality of 'shitting on a cop car', or whether or not count dankula's comments constituted a crime, but instead you seem to be arguing that if nobody knew who he was he wouldn't have been charged.
And again, I think that's a conversation worth having. Personally, as I mentioned, I could go either way with it - if history had left him un-charged and un-fined, I would consider that acceptable. I also consider him having been fined what seems like a minimal sum to be fair enough, considering its hate-crime adjacency. No great injustice has been dealt here, in my opinion. I've definitely heard racier stuff on discord or teamspeak over the years, and while I'm glad those people haven't been fined or charged for anything, they also were voicing their shitty takes to an audience of single digits, not a youtube channel of however many thousands he had at the time.
Freedom of speech and anonymity are clearly related when the latter is the only way to have the former, but you seem to view this is a legitimate "hate crime" so your definition is different. Anonymity has been a part of American speech and debate since the Revolutionary era. Lots of public debate was carried out by different men writing anonymously in newspapers. They even did it when there wasn't a legal threat (Publius and the Federalist Papers). Now of course the internet is much bigger and less curated but free speech and anonymity are very often linked.
"view this as a legitimate hate crime" is a bit strong. I'm open to the possibility of someone posting a video saying 'gas the jews' as quite possibly being less a joke and more crass antisemitism. Defending it (as you've done in other posts) as a "nazi dog" would be appropriate if he was filmed through his livingroom window by a prying neighbour teaching his dog a nazi salute, and then prosecuted by his government for it. That's not what the story is.
Instead, we saw a man performing an antisemetic joke to his dog and posting it publicly to his however many thousand (?) viewers on youtube. I'm not worried about his dog taking the message to heart. I'm also not terribly worried about the large portion of his audience that would see this as a joke. What I'm 'worried about' (read : What I see as reasonable grounds for considering it 'hate speech') is that it's pretty obviously antisemetic language, and that push towards the idea that jews aren't people is dangerous. I don't think that language is "Never ever ever", but I do think normalizing it is dangerous.
This isn't a political message he sent. He wasn't participating in a political discussion and then cancelled because he suggested jews are lesser. He wasn't trying to engage internet anonymity as a path to protecting his right to free speech. He did a stupid and was fined for it, and almost certainly profited off it in the long term because the case isn't clear cut as a hate crime.
I'm definitely not a free speech absolutist, and recognize that speech can be harmful and dangerous. Given that, you can expect that I'll draw the line somewhere, and clearly antisemetic joke publicly posted to many people is fine enough by me. If it was a screenshot of a DM between him and his girlfriend, I'm much less on board. It wasn't.
I guess even if it was just "crass antisemitism" I still don't think it should carry criminal penalties. I prefer the American standard the Supreme Court has endorsed in recent decades: direct incitement and libel.
Sure, because I'm not 13 years old I don't find edgy jokes from people who use names like "Count Dankula" to be very funny (not that I did but I know those that did) but I have to ask who is deciding that?
On March 19 2026 02:46 Billyboy wrote:
On March 19 2026 01:28 Introvert wrote:
On March 19 2026 00:09 Billyboy wrote:
On March 18 2026 23:29 Introvert wrote:
On March 18 2026 22:19 Uldridge wrote: @Introvert: how do you secure a fragile society? How do you keep it from splintering from within? How do you restrict what can and can't be done, especially now that being informed - however you may define that - is so easily done (through the internet or traveling etc.)? Genuine question, if you're willing to elaborate on that. Is anonimity enough you think?
I'd say maybe the ideal is a place where you don't feel the *need* for it but have the option. Is American society "fragile" or would "rancourous" be a better word? What I don't get is how people who might argue for drug decriminalization or even legalization don't see how the arguments apply even better to speech, which is not as inherently destructive. Letting people speak and having a culture of letting people say what they want seems far more conducive to a strong society than having those who control the government decide what is too far. We have social judgements for that. If you use the state then you get what we have now but even worse. The stakes of evey election become even more important as your ability to express yourself suddenly hinges on winning election. It's hard to think of something more destabilizing, at least in the American context.
It's not just platitudes like "the best cure for bad speech is good speech" but it's that the act of, and ability to, speak is ofcrucial societal valve. Nevermind that trying to chase people around for, say, making their dog do a Nazi salute means your culture is probably already in trouble.
I think personal accountability is an important part of free speech.
I also don’t see how it is possible to be a free speech supporter and Republican with the current admin. No one in the party can even remotely question anything Trump says or they are out. He has the FCC attack anything he feels is not positive coverage of anything he does. He has used the power of the government to cancel shows he thinks are mean to him.
This is by far the least free speech government in the democratic world since I’ve been alive.
There is a good argument for accountability, sure. It's not 100% one way but called back to the Revolutionary era because I think it's a good counter example.
I disagree with many things the Trump admin had done. The past few presidential administration's have tested the lines at different times, but this is again one of things I find so odd. If you believe a literal fascist in the White House surely anonymity becomes more important than ever! It's another reason I don't believe people who use that rhetoric actually believe it. Unless they are naive enough to think that once they are on power again they won't lose it.
On March 19 2026 00:27 Gorsameth wrote: speaking of free speech, just remembered that this administration floated the idea of having people visting the US needing to provide their social media history to see if they should be allowed into the country. bbc
I'm sure you threw up a big fit around this clear and obvious invasion of free speech right?
The United States is under no obligation to allow any foreigner to stay and should be allowed to remove one for almost any reason. I view the two situations as sufficiently unlike each other. The polity who gets to decide who joins it.
Truth and accountability is what beats fascism. Of course I want it. I want it to be out there who everyone is putting their money too and who they are supporting. Much like how when Twitter published where all the accounts were from most of the Alberta "freedom" and separatist accounts were not even Canadian. Anonymity is being abused by manipulators and bullies. Take the masks off everyone. Even the rich ones, and especially the rich ones that are abusing children.
The internet is a public space. If we were talking about private conversations that would be a different topic. It is really easy to differentiate, not sure why we need to pretend like the rules can't be made different for different things.
Putting what I said before a different way, who is the one holding people "accountable" and who is deciding "truth"? To me anonimity is *more important* when there is a risk of totalitarianism then when there isn’t. Legal sanction and social sanction are not the same. Bad people get to use the tools too. It just cannot be the position of the modern left that if, say, everyone was publicly identifiable that Trump wouldn't be president, for example. People are really mean to each other even when everyone can see it. There are good and bad aspects to being anonymous, but idk to me the benefits heavily outweigh the drawbacks and the risks.
You have to trust institutions to have a functional government. Otherwise it leads you totalitarianism. If you read any of the old CIA documentation about how to over throw one, guess what one of the major goals are? You also need robust checks and balances on these institutions and massive transparency. You country is moving further away from these things and it is quite obviously pushing you towards not away from Totalitarianism.
I don't know enough about this particularly story to plant some serious flag on my position. But if my skimming from the thread is that some awful person did something awful to his girlfriend to get himself some fame and money. I don't feel particularly bad that they got a slap on the wrist. My hope would be that people were just not as awful as him, and that other people didn't think being awful was funny and cool but here we are. If he was arrested, beaten and tortured and left to rot that would obviously be extreme. They he had a tiny punishment for doing something awful is not a bad thing.
These types of stories however are just distractions from real problems to get people to fight about meaningless dumb crap. The big stuff, like who is paying who in the government for what? Why everyone in your congress, senate and every level of government gets extremely wealthy? How the richest country in the world, both in total wealth and GDP has the problems of developing nations. And so on.
I get you hate "liberals", but if you had to give up a child and it was going to be randomly placed with a family, would you rather it be in Norway or USA? Which has a better functioning government? Which has less money involved? Which people are more accountable? How come Norway has such a massive wealth fun with a bunch of crazy spending lefties and your right wing mecca just keeps beating deficit and debt records? And the right is objectively worse at balancing the budget, but people keep pretending they are better?
Your countries issue isn't the "radical left" (for one thing they barely exist in the US, hell your democrats are our conservatives) it is that your politicians, from the only two parties are both bought and paid for and you only want the other side held accountable. Your side is worse when it comes to this. Trump is a obvious criminal and openly wildly corrupt, yet worshipped by many. If you were actually worried about dictatorship you would be worried about him and how he only employees yes men and loyalty trump competency. Just look at that recent shoe "gift" where all his staff were wearing the same stupid shoes with almost none of them fitting because they were scared to upset their dear leader. It is kind of funny, but mostly scary because of the quality of person who holds the power. The terrifying part is what if some one competent starts abusing power in this way, from either side. There is very little history around one person holding tons of power and it working out well for anyone.
I thought we were having a discussion about what was better to keep totalitarianism impulses at bay but then you spent most of the post unfortunately ranting about something else.
On March 19 2026 06:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Comedians are constantly dancing the line between "crass" and bigoted. That is part of their appeal.
Jerry Seinfeld's comedy show was 10 years of making fun of jews and no one batted an eyelash. The male cast were all jewish and they were all self centred, self absorbed, lazy pricks. And don't tell me Michael Richards isn't jewish. Just look at a picture of him in the 80s.
Don't you think it's different if Jews are the ones writing the jokes about themselves, as opposed to other groups punching down at Jews?
Seinfeld covers that territory in the video. Whatley goes for complete joke telling immunity by joining a different religion and then moving to Poland. Whatley had been a Jew for 1 day and he was already running around telling Jewish jokes. Jerry was quite upset about it. Elaine thought it was hilarious.
What is funny is... people would've went bonkers had the word "k*k*" ever been uttered. But, its OK for George Costanza, George Steinbrenner and Jerry Seinfeld to be a waste of skin adding nothing of value to human society. I really loved the ending of the show where George and Jerry ended the TV Series in jail due to their disdain for all humanity. It was rather fitting.
As far as that individual episode goes, the point Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David were making in plot of that episode is that it is ridiculous that non-jews can't make jewish jokes.
So Jerry says yes and Elaine doesn't care, but I didn't ask them. What do you think?
I think non-jews should be able to make fun of all the idiosyncrasies of Jews. I was the only Jew in the SC-centric PC Bang where regulars played 30+ hours on weekends. My nickname became Goldstein. I was broke as a joke and famous for my nefarious coupon schemes to get fast food super cheap. The stereotype of Jews being 'cheap' has a lot of truth to it. I really enjoy spending very little money on my hobbies
If no one took cheap shot insults at me... I would not have been part of the cool crowd. We all took cheap shots at each other.
Also, in places like Toronto and NYC I don't think people are 'punching down' on Jews. Hell, half the people are working for a Jewish family..
My calculus prof had the reputation as making his courses impossibly difficult. His last name was Lastman. The joke was 'he was the last man you wanted as ur calculus prof'. Imagine not being able to say that joke for fear of being called a bigot. Jokes are a great pressure relief valve. Us students being able to take a cheap shot at our professor helped us cope with a brutally difficult course.
The 2 big universities where I grew up ... The Jewish profs always made their courses the toughest by far. As soon as you saw their last name you knew it was going to be a bloodbath. You should be able to make light of stuff like that and not have to pretend the obvious trend does not exist.
On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think count dankula being fined was stupid.
So it's just you with this opinion, since the rest are currently being dismissed as fringe hypocrites. Do you have any thoughts on why it's just you?
Wombat also stated that he thought it was stupid.
I think many posters argue against people's posting history or against the associated beliefs of various statements or beliefs and I think this is negative. I believe the thread would be better if people did less of this. I think I stay clear of this because I've clearly expressed my opinion on many different issues and I think people know that I am significantly more critical of Trump's freedom of speech infringements than I am of count dankula being fined, even if I also think the latter was stupid. Meanwhile Introvert and Oblade generally tend to be a bit vague in their criticisms of Trump (not saying they're both always supportive) but much more explicit in their critique of 'the other', and with how difficult it can be to get a straight answer out of either, a hostile culture has developed over time.
I like baal but he's a bit old school and can be abrasive.
I was certainly more into the particulars of stuff, including Trump criticism, in his first term. But what's happened now is that before anyone says anything you must denounce Trump as the most evil president who ever lived and if you don't are you even acting in good faith??
See Billboy's response to me above as the perfect example. The example that started this discussion didn't have anything to do with him but somehow this is where it always ends up. I even tried to work with the "Trump bad!" by using it to make a point I thought worth considering. You managed to make a whole post without talking about Trump either, but no one has this sneaking suspicion you are bad person. Being less vague nowadays would translate into saying Trump bad in more and more different ways. It's not value added because the criticism itself isn't important.
Nobody, nobody, no, no, no. No, the greatest experts, nobody thought they were going to hit – they were – I wouldn’t say friendly countries, they were like neutral. They lived with them for years.
- Donald Trump
On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote: They're going to deliberately be the most antisocial neighbour they can be so that countries look back on the situation last week and ask why the US had to go and fuck with that. Last week you could run a refinery on the Gulf, now you can't. Countries know Iran isn't going to stop and they know the US isn't going to deploy ground forces to make them stop and so the only country to exert pressure on here is the US, not Iran.
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse.
On March 19 2026 06:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Comedians are constantly dancing the line between "crass" and bigoted. That is part of their appeal.
Jerry Seinfeld's comedy show was 10 years of making fun of jews and no one batted an eyelash. The male cast were all jewish and they were all self centred, self absorbed, lazy pricks. And don't tell me Michael Richards isn't jewish. Just look at a picture of him in the 80s.
Don't you think it's different if Jews are the ones writing the jokes about themselves, as opposed to other groups punching down at Jews?
Seinfeld covers that territory in the video. Whatley goes for complete joke telling immunity by joining a different religion and then moving to Poland. Whatley had been a Jew for 1 day and he was already running around telling Jewish jokes. Jerry was quite upset about it. Elaine thought it was hilarious.
What is funny is... people would've went bonkers had the word "k*k*" ever been uttered. But, its OK for George Costanza, George Steinbrenner and Jerry Seinfeld to be a waste of skin adding nothing of value to human society. I really loved the ending of the show where George and Jerry ended the TV Series in jail due to their disdain for all humanity. It was rather fitting.
As far as that individual episode goes, the point Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David were making in plot of that episode is that it is ridiculous that non-jews can't make jewish jokes.
So Jerry says yes and Elaine doesn't care, but I didn't ask them. What do you think?
I think non-jews should be able to make fun of all the idiosyncrasies of Jews. I was the only Jew in the SC-centric PC Bang where regulars played 30+ hours on weekends. My nickname became Goldstein. I was broke as a joke and famous for my nefarious coupon schemes to get fast food super cheap. The stereotype of Jews being 'cheap' has a lot of truth to it. I really enjoy spending very little money on my hobbies https://youtu.be/xBPMB1KxH94?si=dccl54BSenRewgqL
If no one took cheap shot insults at me... I would not have been part of the cool crowd. We all took cheap shots at each other.
Also, in places like Toronto and NYC I don't think people are 'punching down' on Jews. Hell, half the people are working for a Jewish family.. My calculus prof had the reputation as making his courses impossibly difficult. His last name was Lastman. The joke was 'he was the last man you wanted as ur calculus prof'. Imagine not being able to say that joke for fear of being called a bigot. Jokes are a great pressure relief valve. Us students being able to take a cheap shot at our professor helped us cope with a brutally difficult course.
The 2 big universities where I grew up ... The Jewish profs always made their courses the toughest by far. As soon as you saw their last name you knew it was going to be a bloodbath. You should be able to make light of stuff like that and not have to pretend the obvious trend does not exist.
Is this copypasta? I could swear I saw this sentence somewhere else.
On March 19 2026 06:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Comedians are constantly dancing the line between "crass" and bigoted. That is part of their appeal.
Jerry Seinfeld's comedy show was 10 years of making fun of jews and no one batted an eyelash. The male cast were all jewish and they were all self centred, self absorbed, lazy pricks. And don't tell me Michael Richards isn't jewish. Just look at a picture of him in the 80s.
Don't you think it's different if Jews are the ones writing the jokes about themselves, as opposed to other groups punching down at Jews?
Seinfeld covers that territory in the video. Whatley goes for complete joke telling immunity by joining a different religion and then moving to Poland. Whatley had been a Jew for 1 day and he was already running around telling Jewish jokes. Jerry was quite upset about it. Elaine thought it was hilarious.
What is funny is... people would've went bonkers had the word "k*k*" ever been uttered. But, its OK for George Costanza, George Steinbrenner and Jerry Seinfeld to be a waste of skin adding nothing of value to human society. I really loved the ending of the show where George and Jerry ended the TV Series in jail due to their disdain for all humanity. It was rather fitting.
As far as that individual episode goes, the point Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David were making in plot of that episode is that it is ridiculous that non-jews can't make jewish jokes.
So Jerry says yes and Elaine doesn't care, but I didn't ask them. What do you think?
I think non-jews should be able to make fun of all the idiosyncrasies of Jews.
That's not what I asked about; please don't move the goalposts. I didn't ask if you thought non-Jews should be able to make fun of Jews. I asked if you thought there was any difference between Jews making fun of themselves and non-Jewish demographics punching down at Jews. (I'm sure someone could elaborate, regardless of their answer to my question, but you didn't give an answer to my question.)
It's a similar question to something like "Do you think it's different when a white person says the N-word compared to when a black person says the N-word" - which could lead to a productive conversation about Yes / No / It Depends answers - but it's off-topic to reply with something like "I don't think white people should be banned from saying the N-word".
On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think count dankula being fined was stupid.
So it's just you with this opinion, since the rest are currently being dismissed as fringe hypocrites. Do you have any thoughts on why it's just you?
Wombat also stated that he thought it was stupid.
I think many posters argue against people's posting history or against the associated beliefs of various statements or beliefs and I think this is negative. I believe the thread would be better if people did less of this. I think I stay clear of this because I've clearly expressed my opinion on many different issues and I think people know that I am significantly more critical of Trump's freedom of speech infringements than I am of count dankula being fined, even if I also think the latter was stupid. Meanwhile Introvert and Oblade generally tend to be a bit vague in their criticisms of Trump (not saying they're both always supportive) but much more explicit in their critique of 'the other', and with how difficult it can be to get a straight answer out of either, a hostile culture has developed over time.
I like baal but he's a bit old school and can be abrasive.
I was certainly more into the particulars of stuff, including Trump criticism, in his first term. But what's happened now is that before anyone says anything you must denounce Trump as the most evil president who ever lived and if you don't are you even acting in good faith??
See Billboy's response to me above as the perfect example. The example that started this discussion didn't have anything to do with him but somehow this is where it always ends up. I even tried to work with the "Trump bad!" by using it to make a point I thought worth considering. You managed to make a whole post without talking about Trump either, but no one has this sneaking suspicion you are bad person. Being less vague nowadays would translate into saying Trump bad in more and more different ways. It's not value added because the criticism itself isn't important.
Sweet dodge, and another faulty assumption. There are most definitely a few people who have suspicions of Drone being a bad person. Way more think that of you, but there are reasons for that.
You are vague because there is nothing left to stand behind in your party, and you think it keeps you from looking like a hypocrite when they do the exact opposite of what you say are your morals.
The only 2 reasons I want to be able to say the n-word is that it's just a really fun word to say. It's like a chef's kiss of a word to pronounce, right up there with fuck. 3 star Michelin dinner if you can use both, I'm so jealous lol. The other reason is that I just want to be one of the boys. Sadly, due to where I like and how I look I'll never be able to (and I'm fine with that) Also, stumbed upon this a while back, linguistics guy deconstructing black American speech. Didn't realize it was this complex, but I'm also not completely inundated in the ... culture, if that is the right word even.
Ok, sorry for this derail about my personal gripes with words that I can't use. On topic. @DPB: we talking ideal world, a world we should work towards or just today's environment?
On March 19 2026 03:20 Introvert wrote: I guess even if it was just "crass antisemitism" I still don't think it should carry criminal penalties. I prefer the American standard the Supreme Court has endorsed in recent decades: direct incitement and libel.
Sure, because I'm not 13 years old I don't find edgy jokes from people who use names like "Count Dankula" to be very funny (not that I did but I know those that did) but I have to ask who is deciding that?
-truncated the quotes for brevity, hopefully you don't feel it takes away from what you're saying.-
Who is deciding that?
Let's assume we agree that free speech should not be absolute. If that's the case, -someone- has to decide what's a joke and what's crass antisemitism. Ideally there would be some overarching structure that 'polices' these things, that they're not heavyhanded or authoritarian about it, they enact it fairly for all parties*, and criticism/debate regarding this institution is allowed to flow freely.
In the case of sir dankula, is that not what we see? Dude got fined 800 bucks for toeing the line of antisemitism to an audience, and there's been plenty of criticism and debate about whether or not it was a case of impinging someone's free speech. That seems like a soft slap on the wrist and has led to plenty of debate (apparently) over whether or not that's where the line should be drawn. It certainly didn't seem to ruin Dankula either personally or professionally.
Assuming you're not a free speech absolutist, who do you think should have governance over speech?
*Caveat being I expect there's reasonable claim that the 'fairly for all parties' isn't necessarily fulfilled and there's probably fair debate in that regard. I wouldn't be surprised if there's evidence of someone saying "death to white men" or something in a youtube video to a few thousand people, and that person not having been fined / whatever.
I think Introvert may have a point here, insofar as if the state is not an amalgam of all sorts of institutions, norms, and a reasonable vague popular consensus on certain things, but instead is a cudgel to be wielded by whatever political party or movement is in the ascendancy in a given locale or juncture, then yeah I do get the reticence to have the state involved in such matters.
But the validity of that point does rather rest on an acceptance that the US is too culturally and politically fragmented to reasonably strike a balance between free speech absolutism and some sensible situational limits, so err on the side of caution and don’t try the latter.
Maybe it’s a purely perceptual thing and subject to huge amounts of distortion, but it certainly at least feels a bit like that now in ways I can’t recall, at least not quite to current degrees.
I mean ideally you have rigid frameworks, impartial institutions and a populace that broadly shares some agreement on the central pillars of a social contract, if perhaps divergence on some particulars.
If you’ve got that, hey have at it! If you do not, or lack some of those elements, and I think in certain places they either are lacking already, or trending that way.
I am tangentially rambling a lot I am aware, but I do think there’s something in Intro’s reticence where one is wary of some escalating arms race on controlling speech determined by whoever’s holding the lever.
I think there’s something in it, but it does raise some awkward observations. Namely that the theory is best validated by the cultural ecosphere who spent the best part of a decade complaining about infringement on free speech just shutting their collective mouths when it was Trump’s lot doing it. Or that Elon Musk personally banning people on Twitter on a whim is fine and totally different from the stuff they were complaining about
EPT
