|
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 |
I believe it's fairly obvious that UK, as a country, doesn't have the best legal framework when it comes to Free speech.
I don't think Count Dankula should have been arrested, I think that at worse he should get a court summons in order to explain himself and, if the law says so, be fined for speech deemed worthy of a fine. To me, saying "gas the jews" in any context and then uploading that to youtube is incredibly stupid and insensitive, however in my ideal world that wouldn't really be worthy of a fine because it was clearly done in a context of trying to be funny.
I also don't think that countries such as UK should be arresting people for wearing headbands, if it's proven that the headband is in support of Hamas, a terrorist organization, it should be confiscated and the person should be fined, I think, once again, arresting them is wrong.
I also think that UK deciding that this is worthy of arrest is highly problematic, we've seen the terrorist designation being weaponized, specifically in the US, it's a very slippery slope to have laws punishing anyone that "international community" deems as terrorists given that "domestic terrorists" label has been thrown around at Democrats in the US. Tomorrow, Trump can decide to go for Greenland and declare all Danes to be terrorists for resisting, we wouldn't want that.
Then there's Germany who has gone incredibly hard after many organizations and people, some of them simply in support for Palestine with their antisemitism laws, issuing travel bans for people like Yanis Varoufakis, dispersing gatherings, denying public funding to organizations critical of Israel.
Those are clear attacks on free speech, not a lot of discussions of those, unfortunately.
There are similar laws in many states in the US, the antisemitism label has been used to attack anyone critical of Israel to the point where it lost all meaning, and I believe that this is a much bigger problem then some idiots being fined for making stupid jokes.
|
Since we're talking about freedom of speech, I thought I should mention the defamation case against the rapper Afroman. A quick summary of what happened: in 2022, the PD obtained a search warrant against Afroman for kidnapping and drug possession and raided his house. They found no evidence of either of those things, but Afroman had security cameras set up that caught the police stealing some cash he had lying around, and eating his lemon pound cake. He then made some music videos titled Will You Help Me Repair My Door and Lemon Pound Cake using the security footage.
Some Adams County police officers then sued Afroman, alleging that his use of the security footage of the raid invaded their privacy, which resulted in "humiliation, ridicule, mental distress, embarrassment and loss of reputation." One of them cried while testifying (warning: extreme schadenfreude). The jury reached their verdict yesterday fully in favor of Afroman: https://www.billboard.com/pro/afroman-trial-verdict-rapper-wins-lawsuit-cops-music-videos/
Edit: There are so many beautiful moments during the trial I want to bring attention to. One of them is that a deputy was asked under oath if Afroman fucked his wife and he was unable to confirm or deny.
|
On March 19 2026 22:22 Jankisa wrote:
however in my ideal world that wouldn't really be worthy of a fine because it was clearly done in a context of trying to be funny.
The "joke" is only "funny" because jews were indeed gased. Would that be part of your ideal world as well?
There is no context where "you're only trying to be funny" because the "joke" would not have any sort of funniness or punchline if we leave out the historic context . It merely becomes a "wishing death on someone" sentence - How is that an ideal world funny thing to say?
- I found blonde jokes funny, once upon a time - then I realized that their context is putting women down - with all it's repetitions and laughs it only indoctrinated and entrenched the patriarchy further little by little - it further's the agenda of those people who say women are only getting jobs for their looks and not their qualifications - A precursor to DEI if you will.
I don't laugh at those jokes anymore - does that mean I think every comedian that made a blonde joke has an agenda or is wilfuly pushing it? no. but I wish they'd see the problem as I do
|
United States44171 Posts
During the search for a way to get additional crude oil onto the market someone noticed that Iran is an oil supplier with some oil in limbo. The US is now considering emergency sanctions relief to Iran in order to help them achieve a swift sale. They estimate it could release up to 140,000,000 barrels. At over $100 per barrel that's a fair chunk of change.
|
So they went to war with iran, give them 14 billion dollars for some oil reserves, and then keep "blockading" them?
I'm happy no other nato country is sending troops to die for this shitshow
|
Northern Ireland27125 Posts
On March 19 2026 22:16 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 11:59 WombaT wrote:
not every working class UK citizen can take an 800 quid hit easily so if a working class drunk driver gets caught he shouldn't be made to pay a huge fine because he can't take the hit? What a piss poor argument mate
Bit uncharitable lad!
I was merely pointing out that a thread full of pretty well-renumerated skillet white-collar workers are (understandably) conceiving of 800 quid as a drop in the bucket nothingburger, when maybe it ain’t for others. Is all.
I don’t think it would be controversial to observe that many people live paycheck to paycheck, or that fines as a method of punishment vary wildly in terms of impact depending on one’s financial situation.
I don’t think it precludes arguing the appropriateness of a fine either, have at it.
Your example is a good one, for me drink-driving as an offence is pretty egregious given you’re significantly increasing your chances of killing someone. So whatever fine, or indeed custodial sentence handed down is pretty reasonable then, like OK you’re poor that sucks but you were drink driving sir/madam
Perhaps some may consider me being overly pernickety and quibbling a bit much here, especially given that the Baron Dankula case that spawned this discussion doesn’t tick most of those boxes. Indeed, he probably gained wealth through this case.
I still think it’s worthy of consideration nonetheless. Being fine with x because ultimately it’s just a slap of the wrist as a position is totally fine, but it is somewhat contingent on it actually being a wrist slap.
If it is not, and for some folks would be a pretty big punishment for them in their particular circumstances, then we have to consider that too.
If some skint Neo-Nazi got busted by the authorities and fined for his reprehensible Neo-Nazi website to the degree it completely fucked him and sent him into abject poverty I mean, I’d be 100% fine with that.
I just wouldn’t dismiss the potential for such proceedings to have such an effect. I mean aside from the end fines itself you’ve also got to go to court as well. Maybe your employer dispenses with you for your unavailability (if they don’t do that for the PR), or if you’re a gig worker you’re out of earning action for a bit. Maybe you incur legal expenses along the way too.
I mean it all adds up. Never mind the costs to pursue such a thing at the state end.
|
On March 20 2026 01:01 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 22:16 misirlou wrote:On March 19 2026 11:59 WombaT wrote:
not every working class UK citizen can take an 800 quid hit easily so if a working class drunk driver gets caught he shouldn't be made to pay a huge fine because he can't take the hit? What a piss poor argument mate Bit uncharitable lad! I was merely pointing out that a thread full of pretty well-renumerated skillet white-collar workers are (understandably) conceiving of 800 quid as a drop in the bucket nothingburger, when maybe it ain’t for others. Is all. I don’t think it would be controversial to observe that many people live paycheck to paycheck, or that fines as a method of punishment vary wildly in terms of impact depending on one’s financial situation. I don’t think it precludes arguing the appropriateness of a fine either, have at it.
Fair enough. I can stand behind the opinion that fines shouldn't be flat but instead based on income (or loss of benefits/community work for income-less people) - It is indeed one inequality factor in our society, all people should be made to e.g. not littering, but a fine for it disproportianely affects a poor person than a rich person - a rich person isn't pressured to not litter in any meaningful capacity. - the endgame we're at now is that companies routinely break laws/regulation because it's cheaper to pay the fine than to be compliant.
But that was not the discussion at hand, perhaps I was indeed too brash with my response but it was a brash few pages
|
On March 20 2026 01:01 misirlou wrote:
So they went to war with iran, give them 14 billion dollars for some oil reserves, and then keep "blockading" them?
I'm happy no other nato country is sending troops to die for this shitshow
You are NOT going to believe the Iranian regime and Ayatollahs' views on the Holocaust and Jews.
|
On March 20 2026 01:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 01:01 misirlou wrote:
So they went to war with iran, give them 14 billion dollars for some oil reserves, and then keep "blockading" them?
I'm happy no other nato country is sending troops to die for this shitshow You are NOT going to believe the Iranian regime and Ayatollahs' views on the Holocaust and Jews.
So because I believe in one's right to life I also must agree with everything they stand for? or because they have different opinions I should "give"/"believe" in less rights for them? What argument are you trying to make?
|
Northern Ireland27125 Posts
On March 20 2026 00:16 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 22:22 Jankisa wrote:
however in my ideal world that wouldn't really be worthy of a fine because it was clearly done in a context of trying to be funny.
The "joke" is only "funny" because jews were indeed gased. Would that be part of your ideal world as well? There is no context where "you're only trying to be funny" because the "joke" would not have any sort of funniness or punchline if we leave out the historic context . It merely becomes a "wishing death on someone" sentence - How is that an ideal world funny thing to say? - I found blonde jokes funny, once upon a time - then I realized that their context is putting women down - with all it's repetitions and laughs it only indoctrinated and entrenched the patriarchy further little by little - it further's the agenda of those people who say women are only getting jobs for their looks and not their qualifications - A precursor to DEI if you will. I don't laugh at those jokes anymore - does that mean I think every comedian that made a blonde joke has an agenda or is wilfuly pushing it? no. but I wish they'd see the problem as I do
The joke is getting an adorable creature to seemingly respond in a positive way to something obviously reprehensible. Which kinda only works mechanically if there’s a tacit acceptance that gassing the Jews both happened, and was bad.
Whether it lands I mean mileage will vary. It worked on me, albeit because our rescue was too traumatised to train much, so the idea others could be trained to be Nazis was funny to me in a ridiculous way.
The intent is pretty key for me anyway here. If Senor Dankula was some open Neo-Nazi and was doing the same thing it’d carry a rather different connotation
|
Northern Ireland27125 Posts
On March 20 2026 01:09 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 01:01 WombaT wrote:On March 19 2026 22:16 misirlou wrote:On March 19 2026 11:59 WombaT wrote:
not every working class UK citizen can take an 800 quid hit easily so if a working class drunk driver gets caught he shouldn't be made to pay a huge fine because he can't take the hit? What a piss poor argument mate Bit uncharitable lad! I was merely pointing out that a thread full of pretty well-renumerated skillet white-collar workers are (understandably) conceiving of 800 quid as a drop in the bucket nothingburger, when maybe it ain’t for others. Is all. I don’t think it would be controversial to observe that many people live paycheck to paycheck, or that fines as a method of punishment vary wildly in terms of impact depending on one’s financial situation. I don’t think it precludes arguing the appropriateness of a fine either, have at it. Fair enough. I can stand behind the opinion that fines shouldn't be flat but instead based on income (or loss of benefits/community work for income-less people) - It is indeed one inequality factor in our society, all people should be made to e.g. not littering, but a fine for it disproportianely affects a poor person than a rich person - a rich person isn't pressured to not litter in any meaningful capacity. - the endgame we're at now is that companies routinely break laws/regulation because it's cheaper to pay the fine than to be compliant. But that was not the discussion at hand, perhaps I was indeed too brash with my response but it was a brash few pages
Fair enough, no drama at my end!
|
On March 20 2026 01:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 01:01 misirlou wrote:
So they went to war with iran, give them 14 billion dollars for some oil reserves, and then keep "blockading" them?
I'm happy no other nato country is sending troops to die for this shitshow You are NOT going to believe the Iranian regime and Ayatollahs' views on the Holocaust and Jews.
Drawing attention to the fact that the Trump administration is paying $14b to some Holocaust deniers is a bold move.
|
United States44171 Posts
On March 20 2026 01:01 misirlou wrote:
So they went to war with iran, give them 14 billion dollars for some oil reserves, and then keep "blockading" them?
I'm happy no other nato country is sending troops to die for this shitshow
They're not blockading Iran. The US Navy is already escorting Iranian oil and LNG tankers to guarantee their safety. This relates to an additional 140 million barrels that was previously under sanction.
With an inelastic commodity like oil every drop of it that doesn't hit the market spikes the price further. For those unfamiliar with economic theory, elasticity is a measure of how price sensitive the consumers of a product are. The basic theory of supply and demand is that if demand outbids supply then logically someone has to go without. Everyone bids for the available supply and the bidding war causes the price to rise until someone says "I don't want it anymore, not at that price".
The issue with oil is that people generally need it, as opposed to wanting it. So when you take a group of people who need it and ask them to bid on it until some of them break what you get is a pretty big spike. Elasticity is measured in the ratio of the % supply/demand mismatch vs the % price increase. With an inelastic commodity like oil a small % drop in supply can result in much larger % change in price. That's how you end up with a situation like this where the US wants Iran to sell as much oil as possible.
This is one of the reasons that setting fire to the place where the hydrocarbons come from was generally considered inadvisable.
|
United States44171 Posts
On March 20 2026 01:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 01:01 misirlou wrote:
So they went to war with iran, give them 14 billion dollars for some oil reserves, and then keep "blockading" them?
I'm happy no other nato country is sending troops to die for this shitshow You are NOT going to believe the Iranian regime and Ayatollahs' views on the Holocaust and Jews.
Sir, might I remind you that your position is that there is no Iranian regime. You were extremely definite on this fact.
|
How would one know without investigating? Can you imagine a video is released saying gas the Jews over and over in “jest”, it is reported, someone determines it’s a joke and the guy bombs a synagogue? The outrage would be massive.
Sounds like video reported, it and he are investigated, find out it was just a terrible joke that does still break the hate law rules, the judge gives him a fine instead of the maximum punishment. I’m missing the bad part?
This is total manufactured outrage that runs rampant these days.
|
On March 20 2026 01:21 Billyboy wrote:
This is total manufactured outrage that runs rampant these days.
now you're just bad faith gaslighting
|
I'm still not entirely clear about why someone getting fined for hate speech on their public, monetized YouTube account is proof that social media anonymity is important. This wasn't some V for Vendetta-esque underground resistance network that only got exposed because of state omnisurveillance, it was a guy doing a dumb joke for clicks, which only convert into money if you've already exposed your identity to a megacorporation.
|
On March 20 2026 01:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 01:01 misirlou wrote:
So they went to war with iran, give them 14 billion dollars for some oil reserves, and then keep "blockading" them?
I'm happy no other nato country is sending troops to die for this shitshow They're not blockading Iran. The US Navy is already escorting Iranian oil and LNG tankers to guarantee their safety. This relates to an additional 140 million barrels that was previously under sanction. With an inelastic commodity like oil every drop of it that doesn't hit the market spikes the price further. For those unfamiliar with economic theory, elasticity is a measure of how price sensitive the consumers of a product are. The basic theory of supply and demand is that if demand outbids supply then logically someone has to go without. Everyone bids for the available supply and the bidding war causes the price to rise until someone says "I don't want it anymore, not at that price". The issue with oil is that people generally need it, as opposed to wanting it. So when you take a group of people who need it and ask them to bid on it until some of them break what you get is a pretty big spike. Elasticity is measured in the ratio of the % supply/demand mismatch vs the % price increase. With an inelastic commodity like oil a small % drop in supply can result in much larger % change in price. That's how you end up with a situation like this where the US wants Iran to sell as much oil as possible. This is one of the reasons that setting fire to the place where the hydrocarbons come from was generally considered inadvisable.
Blockading wasn't accurate, hence the quotes. We call them economic sanctions now - take NK for example, it's not being blockaded by the U.S. or the Western world in any shape or form the word blockade invokes. But if China had enough of their antics and stopped trading with them, are they not functionally in the same position that a blockade would impose on them? They can get things through black markets and smuggling, but that's also true of an actual blockade.
I know Iran still has allies and is not completely blocked off, and likely a few steps below what NK has to endure.
No, this is not an endorsement or pity for NK or Iran, before someone asks
|
On March 20 2026 01:17 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 01:10 oBlade wrote:On March 20 2026 01:01 misirlou wrote:
So they went to war with iran, give them 14 billion dollars for some oil reserves, and then keep "blockading" them?
I'm happy no other nato country is sending troops to die for this shitshow You are NOT going to believe the Iranian regime and Ayatollahs' views on the Holocaust and Jews. Drawing attention to the fact that the Trump administration is paying $14b to some Holocaust deniers is a bold move.
How do you not know what sanctions are and what they mean?
|
On March 20 2026 01:41 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 01:17 LightSpectra wrote:On March 20 2026 01:10 oBlade wrote:On March 20 2026 01:01 misirlou wrote:
So they went to war with iran, give them 14 billion dollars for some oil reserves, and then keep "blockading" them?
I'm happy no other nato country is sending troops to die for this shitshow You are NOT going to believe the Iranian regime and Ayatollahs' views on the Holocaust and Jews. Drawing attention to the fact that the Trump administration is paying $14b to some Holocaust deniers is a bold move. How do you not know what sanctions are and what they mean?
When Barack Obama suspended sanctions on Iran, child molester Donald Trump said "The Democrats and President Obama gave Iran 150 Billion Dollars". So unless you're willing to admit he's a bald-faced liar, I'll continue to refer to the two things interchangeably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
