|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland26433 Posts
On March 19 2026 11:33 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 11:30 baal wrote:On March 19 2026 01:49 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 18 2026 16:45 baal wrote:On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think count dankula being fined was stupid. Fucking thank you. It's so difficult to discuss in this forum where so many argue in bad faith and gaslights constantly it makes productive discourse impossible so tl.net has become this reddit-type echo chamber. It's probably too ingrained in the forum culture but bad faith should warrant warnings/bans, when I was a mod that was the only reason I banned people, extreme freedom of speech no matter how heated it got as far as people were arguing in good faith. I am unsure in what way I gaslit you by reading about the person you indicated had been sent to prison for having the wrong opinion. I am also not sure what the bad faith was on my end. I read the times article and the house of lords statement and provided my analysis and understanding on what I read. It feels, from my end, that it is you who is not holding up their side of the bargain. I dont know if it was you, I'm replying to a lot of ppl hard to keep track of who is who but an example of gaslighting in this case would be insisting that the case has nothing to do with anonymity because the video was public. That is bad faith gaslighting because the argument is: anonymity is needed because many governments are censorious even civil ones ones like the UK, look what they did to this guy for a joke That is the point, if you can't make nazi pug jokes without being arrested then clearly anonymity is needed. He made it, and got way more famous because of the notoriety. He likely broke the rules on purpose so he could take the slap on the wrist and claim victim to all those who eat that shit up, because they too feel like victims. It is funny how fast the guys complaining about snow flakes became ultra snowflakes. [/b][/b]
The guy only got (low level) famous because of this though. This works both ways.
Viscount Dankula doesn’t enter public prominence if you don’t arrest the lad in the first place. And the guy doesn’t have a scaffold to martyr himself off if you don’t do that.
And I do kinda object to the idea that an 800 quid fine is nothing. A slap on the wrist. Probably not the case with Dankula cos he leveraged this case to make more money, but not every working class UK citizen can take an 800 quid hit easily
|
On March 19 2026 02:30 LightSpectra wrote:
baal claimed that Count Dankula is a communist that went to jail for a joke, none of which is true.
I said he was one.
(the implication being the UK should loosen their gun control so people can have an armed protest or insurrection because of Dankula having to pay a fine? I guess?).
WAT lol
I earlier said in an unrelated post that I was anti-gun and now I'm pro-gun because I've witnessed how helpless people are against tyranny in places like Venezuela, Cuba, Iran etc. It had nothing to do with the UK and count dankula that was about anonymity.
What is fringe hypocrisy is supporting Republicans while claiming to be pro-free speech. Though I guess you could say something like "I do care about free speech but the Republicans' repeated, blatant, unrepentant infringements of it is simply a lower priority than killing and dehumanizing immigrants and trans people" if you wanted to avoid the hypocrisy charge and just be a dumb asshole.
Yes those republicans are hypocrites, and so are you if you bitch about Trump's suppression of freedom of speech but not about the UK.
Almost everybody who thinks hate-speech laws are ok wouldn't be ok if a right wing leader suppressed communist ideas
Thats the beauty of being truly for freedom of speech, when you argue from first principles it's hard to be a hypocrite.
|
Northern Ireland26433 Posts
On March 19 2026 11:27 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 10:55 WombaT wrote:On March 19 2026 10:05 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On March 19 2026 09:15 Falling wrote:On March 19 2026 08:03 KwarK wrote: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. Yeah, he's either lying or suffering memory loss or both. John Bolton is talking about how they ran through those scenarios through with Trump in his first term. Closing the "Straight" of Hormuz and targeting oil infrastructure were all difficulties that were discussed. But, hey, Trump is also claiming that secretly one of the past presidents (he won't say who) has called him up just to say how badly they wished they could have taken on Iran like Trump is... the four living past presidents have all said it wasn't them, sooooo. He might just have a really... relativist relationship with the truth. He comes from money and his primary skills seem to be reading the room on public sentiment and promising things (which i guess is an element of salesmanship). I guess he has been shielded from the negative effects most people experience if they don't have a good grasp of verifiable, empirical reality. I wouldn't be suprised if he genuinely believes what he is saying. Even in normal people we find that our memory of past events are very unreliable. I can't imagine what it might be for someone who might just not have that much practice dealing with physical 'objective' reality. He’s not Kim Jong Un. It’d be a miracle if that guy turned out well-adjusted IMO. I don’t see how you could being anointed in such a society. Trump has some psychological problem, or he’s a flagrant liar for his own benefit, I don’t really see an alternative explanation. There’s plenty of equivalently, or indeed more wealthy folks who were brought up with silver spoons who don’t behave similarly. If he believes in what he is saying it conflicts all the time with other things he’s said. He’s not some consistent iconoclastic type I mean we live in a world where many people will doubt the testimony of a singular (usually) woman in an abusive relationship because ‘he’s obviously an asshole, why don’t they just leave?’ but be completely blind to the exact same hooks if they’re applied at some macro level. I mean this is basically the relationship many have with Trump. It’s less particularly principled and more enabling an abusive partner. I don't think we are in disagreement, I'm not saying all rich people have trouble with physical reality. Just that if you are someone who does have trouble with reality, it helps to be rich and never have to do 'menial' work that usually interacts heavily with physical reality. Those who have this problem and don't have that luxury, I would assume, would have through the process of coping with... being alive and existing in society... found ways to cope with this problem. Being good at promising things and gauging sentiment, but not having to be the person that actually deliver on those promises tends to be the sorts of jobs that might allow you to never properly develope coping strategies. Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 11:07 WombaT wrote:On March 19 2026 10:51 Billyboy wrote:On March 19 2026 10:05 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On March 19 2026 09:15 Falling wrote:On March 19 2026 08:03 KwarK wrote: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. Yeah, he's either lying or suffering memory loss or both. John Bolton is talking about how they ran through those scenarios through with Trump in his first term. Closing the "Straight" of Hormuz and targeting oil infrastructure were all difficulties that were discussed. But, hey, Trump is also claiming that secretly one of the past presidents (he won't say who) has called him up just to say how badly they wished they could have taken on Iran like Trump is... the four living past presidents have all said it wasn't them, sooooo. He might just have a really... relativist relationship with the truth. He comes from money and his primary skills seem to be reading the room on public sentiment and promising things (which i guess is an element of salesmanship). I guess he has been shielded from the negative effects most people experience if they don't have a good grasp of verifiable, empirical reality. I wouldn't be suprised if he genuinely believes what he is saying. Even in normal people we find that our memory of past events are very unreliable. I can't imagine what it might be for someone who might just not have that much practice dealing with physical 'objective' reality. Narcissist's just have a really weird relationship with the truth. Some studies even indicate they actually change the memories to make themselves correct. Here is a famous poem and review. The Narcissist's Prayer
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
The Narcissist's Prayer (author unknown) beautifully illustrates one aspect of the inner workings of the narcissistic mind. Denial, gaslighting, minimising poor behaviour, blameshifting and shamedumping all feature in this one simple verse. It is clear that 'truth' is not seen by the narcissistically disordered person as a finite, fixed entity, but as being malleable - as being whatever the narcissist says it is, at the time they say it. It seems that the truth is simply whatever serves the narcissist at that particular time. A more in depth look at the reasoning. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/understanding-narcissism/202007/why-narcissists-twist-the-truth Indeed, they are arseholes to deal with. Albeit I do have sympathy, it’s not intentional maliciousness necessarily, they just process things that way. Just how they’re wired, and to my understanding it’s prohibitively difficult to rewire that. Some actively don’t want their mind to work in such a manner, assuming they concede there’s a problem. While I have some sympathy there, equally I don’t want a partner to have those tendencies. Hell, even just close friends. Never mind the leader of the bloody free world Well yeah, being in touch with empirical reality, so much as a normal person can be is generally a valuable asset for people in all sorts of positions. Noone is suggesting difficulty with the truth is a desirable trait for the POTUS to have, just that he might not necessarily be an intentional serial liar.
The usual rich person problem with reality is a lack of comprehension about the lives of the common folk. Some try, some succeed in bridging that gap
Which to me is pretty understandable, although societally not desirable ideally as society shouldn’t be so stratified, so I digress.
I get that. But that isn’t Donald Trump.
In terms of general graduating levels I don’t disagree but I don’t think the POTUS fits that at all
|
Northern Ireland26433 Posts
On March 19 2026 11:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 11:49 baal wrote:On March 19 2026 05:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 19 2026 02:07 dyhb wrote: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.  It feels very tribal and anybody with a different idea is going to get jumped with dirty tactics instead of engaging with the idea. Somebody discussing in good faith would say something like you did "The Count Dankula thing was wrong" or they can say they agree instead we get 3 pages of people saying "it has nothing to do with anonymity" or "We dont know the case deeply enough to rule" FFS. I also like you, you've always been reasonable despise being a lefty Okay but you literally didn’t know the case well enough to have an opinion on it. For some reason you’re taking that as a good thing. That unlike all those people who think you shouldn’t second guess a court ruling based on some shit you heard you alone were brave enough to die on the hill that he shouldn’t go to prison for something his dog did.
How well do you need to know the case? The general tenor of discussion seems to me more about a ‘should we prosecute…?’ than about whether the court did its duty, as bound by the law.
I mean by your own rationale we can’t express misgivings about a Kyle Rittenhouse or a police shooting, or the latest IDF ‘mistake’ because the courts and those present dealt with that.
|
United States43739 Posts
On March 19 2026 12:14 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 11:59 KwarK wrote:On March 19 2026 11:49 baal wrote:On March 19 2026 05:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 19 2026 02:07 dyhb wrote: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. It feels very tribal and anybody with a different idea is going to get jumped with dirty tactics instead of engaging with the idea. Somebody discussing in good faith would say something like you did "The Count Dankula thing was wrong" or they can say they agree instead we get 3 pages of people saying "it has nothing to do with anonymity" or "We dont know the case deeply enough to rule" FFS. I also like you, you've always been reasonable despise being a lefty Okay but you literally didn’t know the case well enough to have an opinion on it. For some reason you’re taking that as a good thing. That unlike all those people who think you shouldn’t second guess a court ruling based on some shit you heard you alone were brave enough to die on the hill that he shouldn’t go to prison for something his dog did. How well do you need to know the case? The general tenor of discussion seems to me more about a ‘should we prosecute…?’ than about whether the court did its duty, as bound by the law. I mean by your own rationale we can’t express misgivings about a Kyle Rittenhouse or a police shooting, or the latest IDF ‘mistake’ because the courts and those present dealt with that.
I'd settle for knowing it a little well. baal was upset that he was sent to prison for training his dog to do a Nazi salute. Mr Dankula was fined for repeatedly calling for the gassing of the Jews, albeit in a context that implied he was not doing it sincerely. baal's understanding of the case does not meet the standard of being even a little informed. If you were to take someone who had never heard of Mr Dankula and baal and ask both of them whether Mr Dankula had been imprisoned then the person who knew absolutely nothing would be more likely to provide a correct answer.
|
Oh he wasn't arrested for making a prank of a dog raising his paws when he said "gas the jews" he was arrested for pronouncing the words "gas the jews" multiple times while doing the joke, yeah that is totally logical, such a complex case, impossible to give an opinion lol.
|
On March 19 2026 12:23 KwarK wrote:
I'd settle for knowing it a little well. baal was upset that he was sent to prison for training his dog to do a Nazi salute. Mr Dankula was fined for repeatedly calling for the gassing of the Jews, albeit in a context that implied he was not doing it sincerely. baal's understanding of the case does not meet the standard of being even a little informed. If you were to take someone who had never heard of Mr Dankula and baal and ask both of them whether Mr Dankula had been imprisoned then the person who knew absolutely nothing would be more likely to provide a correct answer.
You said gasing the jews, you should be arrested, context is irrelevant.
|
Northern Ireland26433 Posts
On March 19 2026 12:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 12:14 WombaT wrote:On March 19 2026 11:59 KwarK wrote:On March 19 2026 11:49 baal wrote:On March 19 2026 05:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 19 2026 02:07 dyhb wrote: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. It feels very tribal and anybody with a different idea is going to get jumped with dirty tactics instead of engaging with the idea. Somebody discussing in good faith would say something like you did "The Count Dankula thing was wrong" or they can say they agree instead we get 3 pages of people saying "it has nothing to do with anonymity" or "We dont know the case deeply enough to rule" FFS. I also like you, you've always been reasonable despise being a lefty Okay but you literally didn’t know the case well enough to have an opinion on it. For some reason you’re taking that as a good thing. That unlike all those people who think you shouldn’t second guess a court ruling based on some shit you heard you alone were brave enough to die on the hill that he shouldn’t go to prison for something his dog did. How well do you need to know the case? The general tenor of discussion seems to me more about a ‘should we prosecute…?’ than about whether the court did its duty, as bound by the law. I mean by your own rationale we can’t express misgivings about a Kyle Rittenhouse or a police shooting, or the latest IDF ‘mistake’ because the courts and those present dealt with that. I'd settle for knowing it a little well. baal was upset that he was sent to prison for training his dog to do a Nazi salute. Mr Dankula was fined for repeatedly calling for the gassing of the Jews, albeit in a context that implied he was not doing it sincerely. baal's understanding of the case does not meet the standard of being even a little informed. If you were to take someone who had never heard of Mr Dankula and baal and ask both of them whether Mr Dankula had been imprisoned then the person who knew absolutely nothing would be more likely to provide a correct answer.
Fair enough as it pertains to Baal’s positions
|
United States43739 Posts
On March 19 2026 12:42 baal wrote:
Oh he wasn't arrested for making a prank of a dog raising his paws when he said "gas the jews" he was arrested for pronouncing the words "gas the jews" multiple times while doing the joke, yeah that is totally logical, such a complex case, impossible to give an opinion lol.
Given that you only know the basic details of the case because I took the time to look them up and explain them to you maybe you should cool off a little. And there's a massive abyss between being imprisoned for a dog doing a salute and being fined for making and publishing a video of yourself going "gas the Jews" over and over.
|
Northern Ireland26433 Posts
On March 19 2026 12:01 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 02:30 LightSpectra wrote:
baal claimed that Count Dankula is a communist that went to jail for a joke, none of which is true. I said he was one. Show nested quote +(the implication being the UK should loosen their gun control so people can have an armed protest or insurrection because of Dankula having to pay a fine? I guess?). WAT lol I earlier said in an unrelated post that I was anti-gun and now I'm pro-gun because I've witnessed how helpless people are against tyranny in places like Venezuela, Cuba, Iran etc. It had nothing to do with the UK and count dankula that was about anonymity. Show nested quote +What is fringe hypocrisy is supporting Republicans while claiming to be pro-free speech. Though I guess you could say something like "I do care about free speech but the Republicans' repeated, blatant, unrepentant infringements of it is simply a lower priority than killing and dehumanizing immigrants and trans people" if you wanted to avoid the hypocrisy charge and just be a dumb asshole. Yes those republicans are hypocrites, and so are you if you bitch about Trump's suppression of freedom of speech but not about the UK. Almost everybody who thinks hate-speech laws are ok wouldn't be ok if a right wing leader suppressed communist ideas Thats the beauty of being truly for freedom of speech, when you argue from first principles it's hard to be a hypocrite.
What are the first principles here?
To take an extreme if one is 100% free speech in all its guises, I mean if you apply it consistently you’re not a hypocrite at least. That doesn’t necessarily mean that’s a good course of advocacy
|
On March 19 2026 12:43 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 12:23 KwarK wrote:
I'd settle for knowing it a little well. baal was upset that he was sent to prison for training his dog to do a Nazi salute. Mr Dankula was fined for repeatedly calling for the gassing of the Jews, albeit in a context that implied he was not doing it sincerely. baal's understanding of the case does not meet the standard of being even a little informed. If you were to take someone who had never heard of Mr Dankula and baal and ask both of them whether Mr Dankula had been imprisoned then the person who knew absolutely nothing would be more likely to provide a correct answer. You said gasing the jews, you should be arrested, context is irrelevant.
Well as long as he is only arrested, charged, convicted, and fined, but not imprisoned, it's hard to say that there is any issue involved with the government's regulation of speech. After all, it's just money which doesn't mean anything, but also it's a very serious crime that needs to be punished by a meaningless fine.
|
On March 19 2026 11:50 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 05:30 Vivax wrote:
Someone named Ramp Capital on twitter could also be referring to my mom's skydiving accident. I could be offended, but I can't prove it.
Gonna have to wait for the GDI Ion cannon to hit the village while they think of new ways to milk me.
Kinda fits into US pol too cause imo there's been something from the US influencing them. Something radical.
6 years of 'special operations' in your neighbourhood kinda destroys you mentally.
They also destroy themselves in the process, kinda. So w/e.
In case you're wondering where we are on the fascism meter globally. They get free sponsorships in other countries and on socials.
Even Zucks stuff can‘t hide that he‘s just as bad as the rest. Strong squizo shit posting game
Strong yes.
Schizo only if one has a long enough timeline :/
|
On March 19 2026 11:49 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 05:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 19 2026 02:07 dyhb wrote: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. It feels very tribal and anybody with a different idea is going to get jumped with dirty tactics instead of engaging with the idea. Somebody discussing in good faith would say something like you did "The Count Dankula thing was wrong" or they can say they agree instead we get 3 pages of people saying "it has nothing to do with anonymity" or "We dont know the case deeply enough to rule" FFS. I also like you, you've always been reasonable despise being a lefty
Brother, if you actually understood the fuck you were talking about and could articulate it well you'd actually be able to defend your point. You can pretend I've argued 'in bad faith' because you don't like (or understand?) what I'm saying, but at no point did you actually connect the case back to being an issue of anonymity. Intro did a better job of that than you did from the sidelines.
|
On March 19 2026 12:55 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 12:01 baal wrote:On March 19 2026 02:30 LightSpectra wrote:
baal claimed that Count Dankula is a communist that went to jail for a joke, none of which is true. I said he was one. (the implication being the UK should loosen their gun control so people can have an armed protest or insurrection because of Dankula having to pay a fine? I guess?). WAT lol I earlier said in an unrelated post that I was anti-gun and now I'm pro-gun because I've witnessed how helpless people are against tyranny in places like Venezuela, Cuba, Iran etc. It had nothing to do with the UK and count dankula that was about anonymity. What is fringe hypocrisy is supporting Republicans while claiming to be pro-free speech. Though I guess you could say something like "I do care about free speech but the Republicans' repeated, blatant, unrepentant infringements of it is simply a lower priority than killing and dehumanizing immigrants and trans people" if you wanted to avoid the hypocrisy charge and just be a dumb asshole. Yes those republicans are hypocrites, and so are you if you bitch about Trump's suppression of freedom of speech but not about the UK. Almost everybody who thinks hate-speech laws are ok wouldn't be ok if a right wing leader suppressed communist ideas Thats the beauty of being truly for freedom of speech, when you argue from first principles it's hard to be a hypocrite. What are the first principles here? To take an extreme if one is 100% free speech in all its guises, I mean if you apply it consistently you’re not a hypocrite at least. That doesn’t necessarily mean that’s a good course of advocacy
There is nothing extreme about it, It's just simply how the US defines it along with a decent chunk in the world (in theory), libel and harassment are not protected, just no hate speech laws caveats.
If denying the holocaust is a crime then it should also be to deny the holodomor, if a swastika is forbidden the hammer and sickle too but that's never the case because censors only ban speech they personally don't like, but in time those tools they created will be used against them.
|
On March 19 2026 12:50 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 12:23 KwarK wrote:On March 19 2026 12:14 WombaT wrote:On March 19 2026 11:59 KwarK wrote:On March 19 2026 11:49 baal wrote:On March 19 2026 05:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 19 2026 02:07 dyhb wrote: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. It feels very tribal and anybody with a different idea is going to get jumped with dirty tactics instead of engaging with the idea. Somebody discussing in good faith would say something like you did "The Count Dankula thing was wrong" or they can say they agree instead we get 3 pages of people saying "it has nothing to do with anonymity" or "We dont know the case deeply enough to rule" FFS. I also like you, you've always been reasonable despise being a lefty Okay but you literally didn’t know the case well enough to have an opinion on it. For some reason you’re taking that as a good thing. That unlike all those people who think you shouldn’t second guess a court ruling based on some shit you heard you alone were brave enough to die on the hill that he shouldn’t go to prison for something his dog did. How well do you need to know the case? The general tenor of discussion seems to me more about a ‘should we prosecute…?’ than about whether the court did its duty, as bound by the law. I mean by your own rationale we can’t express misgivings about a Kyle Rittenhouse or a police shooting, or the latest IDF ‘mistake’ because the courts and those present dealt with that. I'd settle for knowing it a little well. baal was upset that he was sent to prison for training his dog to do a Nazi salute. Mr Dankula was fined for repeatedly calling for the gassing of the Jews, albeit in a context that implied he was not doing it sincerely. baal's understanding of the case does not meet the standard of being even a little informed. If you were to take someone who had never heard of Mr Dankula and baal and ask both of them whether Mr Dankula had been imprisoned then the person who knew absolutely nothing would be more likely to provide a correct answer. Fair enough as it pertains to Baal’s positions
Kinda submissive take.
|
On March 19 2026 14:04 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 12:55 WombaT wrote:On March 19 2026 12:01 baal wrote:On March 19 2026 02:30 LightSpectra wrote:
baal claimed that Count Dankula is a communist that went to jail for a joke, none of which is true. I said he was one. (the implication being the UK should loosen their gun control so people can have an armed protest or insurrection because of Dankula having to pay a fine? I guess?). WAT lol I earlier said in an unrelated post that I was anti-gun and now I'm pro-gun because I've witnessed how helpless people are against tyranny in places like Venezuela, Cuba, Iran etc. It had nothing to do with the UK and count dankula that was about anonymity. What is fringe hypocrisy is supporting Republicans while claiming to be pro-free speech. Though I guess you could say something like "I do care about free speech but the Republicans' repeated, blatant, unrepentant infringements of it is simply a lower priority than killing and dehumanizing immigrants and trans people" if you wanted to avoid the hypocrisy charge and just be a dumb asshole. Yes those republicans are hypocrites, and so are you if you bitch about Trump's suppression of freedom of speech but not about the UK. Almost everybody who thinks hate-speech laws are ok wouldn't be ok if a right wing leader suppressed communist ideas Thats the beauty of being truly for freedom of speech, when you argue from first principles it's hard to be a hypocrite. What are the first principles here? To take an extreme if one is 100% free speech in all its guises, I mean if you apply it consistently you’re not a hypocrite at least. That doesn’t necessarily mean that’s a good course of advocacy There is nothing extreme about it, It's just simply how the US defines it along with a decent chunk in the world (in theory), libel and harassment are not protected, just no hate speech laws caveats. If denying the holocaust is a crime then it should also be to deny the holodomor, if a swastika is forbidden the hammer and sickle too but that's never the case because censors only ban speech they personally don't like, but in time those tools they created will be used against them.
In Thailand you can't insult the king, in Turkey you can't insult Attaturk, islamic countries it's Islam, Germany and Austria it's about nazi history etc.
It's just culture dependent.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1229 Posts
On March 19 2026 14:04 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 12:55 WombaT wrote:On March 19 2026 12:01 baal wrote:On March 19 2026 02:30 LightSpectra wrote:
baal claimed that Count Dankula is a communist that went to jail for a joke, none of which is true. I said he was one. (the implication being the UK should loosen their gun control so people can have an armed protest or insurrection because of Dankula having to pay a fine? I guess?). WAT lol I earlier said in an unrelated post that I was anti-gun and now I'm pro-gun because I've witnessed how helpless people are against tyranny in places like Venezuela, Cuba, Iran etc. It had nothing to do with the UK and count dankula that was about anonymity. What is fringe hypocrisy is supporting Republicans while claiming to be pro-free speech. Though I guess you could say something like "I do care about free speech but the Republicans' repeated, blatant, unrepentant infringements of it is simply a lower priority than killing and dehumanizing immigrants and trans people" if you wanted to avoid the hypocrisy charge and just be a dumb asshole. Yes those republicans are hypocrites, and so are you if you bitch about Trump's suppression of freedom of speech but not about the UK. Almost everybody who thinks hate-speech laws are ok wouldn't be ok if a right wing leader suppressed communist ideas Thats the beauty of being truly for freedom of speech, when you argue from first principles it's hard to be a hypocrite. What are the first principles here? To take an extreme if one is 100% free speech in all its guises, I mean if you apply it consistently you’re not a hypocrite at least. That doesn’t necessarily mean that’s a good course of advocacy There is nothing extreme about it, It's just simply how the US defines it along with a decent chunk in the world (in theory), libel and harassment are not protected, just no hate speech laws caveats. If denying the holocaust is a crime then it should also be to deny the holodomor, if a swastika is forbidden the hammer and sickle too but that's never the case because censors only ban speech they personally don't like, but in time those tools they created will be used against them.
Complete lack of hate crime laws is, in the developed world pretty much restricted the the US, and two heavily US influenced systems (Japan and Taiwan if we go ahead and treat that as a country). Yes, there are many developing countries without hate crime laws, but it's hard to tell if this is in solidarity with the US interpretation of freedom of speech, or just having more important things to worry about legally.
While I agree, 'we should have US style (lack of) hate crime laws' is a consistent argument. Other countries do get to have their own laws, and at least for the rest of the developed world, they don't agree that's what the laws on speech/expression should be.
I did a bit of research. Saying 'we should gas all the jews' or 'lets kill all women' even with all seriousness, turns out not a hate crime in the US, doesn't even meet the requirement for inciting violence, as it isn't likely to threaten lawless action that is about to happen immediately (under exceptional circumstances it obviously might, then it is not covered by first amendment). In most developed countries, that would at least be a hate crime, if not meet their requirements for inciting violence, I think you will find most people, myself included, in those countries will agree it is reasonable to have hate crime laws, and that's why those laws exist there.
While i still think Dankula's case was very soft, I do see the case for "gas the jews" repeatedly on a public video, that he then left up to bring traffic to his other content, being actually in violation of UK hate speech laws.
On one hand, the law is up to interpretation (in this case of the judge), and Dankula's legal counsel should, and did, argue that this in fact not illegal.
On the other, your argument about that people should find a way to be anonymous while engaging in these legally questionable cases of speech/expression, while good practical advice, does boil down to 'if you are going to commit a crime, don't get caught'. Or at least if you aren't sure if what you are going to do is a crime, make sure you can't be caught.
As a resident of another developed country, you don't get to choose to just follow the US interpretation of the law.
|
On March 19 2026 11:24 KwarK wrote:
Pentagon requesting an extra $200b for Iran but that’s likely lowballing because they still don’t seem to realize that absent any sudden collapse there will need to be an occupation. No, this ends when Trump had lost so badly that he will claim he won and go home.
I suppose this really is a test of how strong Netanyahu's hold over Trump is. Because Israel wants to keep this war going for as long as it can.
|
You misspeak slightly to say no hate "crime" laws, the US does have those, hate speech itself is a different animal that the US through long legal tradition sprouting from the 1st amendment doesn't recognize as a category of speech that can be proscribed per se.
|
Good
User was banned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i0.wp.com/caffeineandphilosophy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/dank-1.jpg?resize=331%2C247&ssl=1)
