Law against Hate Speech etc etc etc...

mmj_uk said:
Poltically correct group think from the left I assume, if sufficient leftists are collectively outraged on social media it's hate speech. They'll act as a group conciousness akin to the Borg from Star Trek in deciding just as they did when they got together to try to ruin Ched Evans life before he was cleared.

According to Wikipedia calling some ethnic groups freeloaders is a hate crime in Germany, I imagine calling unemployed German born nationals the same thing is perfectly fine though.
Click to expand...



Your exact words were:
if she was looking for someone to kill her kids
Click to expand...


As for German hate speech laws, it is very similar to the UK:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace:

  1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
  2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population,
Click to expand...

So what you imagine is entirely irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
You talked to her.
You admitted you were angry.
The topic of your2 conversion was about the killing of her children.
Click to expand...

That's right. But I did not say I was going to kill them. Are you that stupid that if your mate Dave asks if you're looking at a new house you think he means he's going to give you his?
 
Dis86 said:
That's right. But I did not say I was going to kill them. Are you that stupid that if your mate Dave asks if you're looking at a new house you think he means he's going to give you his?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter whether you said you were going to kill her children, you talked about someone killing her children.

If you can;t see why that might cause distress in a parent then you need to get some counseling. You could have merely pointed out that what she did was very dangerous and please be more courteous and aware in the future. Absolutely no need to mention killing her children.

Anyway, this is completely off topic
 
D.P. said:
Doesn't matter whether you said you were going to kill her children, you talked about someone killing her children.

If you can;t see why that might cause distress in a parent then you need to get some counseling. You could have merely pointed out that what she did was very dangerous and please be more courteous and aware in the future. Absolutely no need to mention killing her children.

Anyway, this is completely off topic
Click to expand...

Its not off topic at all as it shows clearly how people like you can't understand simple words and interpret something as a threat when it clearly isn't one. Also on the counselling, I'd suggest the dumb parent who endangers their children's lives just to get a parking spot is the one that requires help.
 
Efour said:
I do agree to some extent but I do also think people shouldn't be able to spout anything and everything they want under the guise of free speech.

Social media is a really different platform to a soap box and a loud speaker. It's scope is ridiculously wider.

I would be for some kind of way of your online presence being directly registered to your real and fully being accountable for the crap you potentially say.

That still gives you the right to talk drivel but at least be known as an idiot by your community etc.
Click to expand...

And makes it dangerous to disagree in any way with anyone who has enough power to cause you harm and the will to do so. It's an authoritarian's dream. For a currently moderately famous example, I urge you to read the Google memo and then read what's being said about it (which usually bears little or no resemblence to what was actually written in the memo) and consider what happened to the author of it. Even if people don't go as far as outright lying (which they usually will, as you'll see if you read that memo and what is being said about it) it's easy to skew something enough to present a false impression of it without obviously lying. Selective quoting, quoting out of context, etc. An example that comes to mind is moon landing conspiracy believers quoting van Allen saying that the van Allen belts would be deadly as "proof" than none of the moon landings happened. He did say that. It's right there in the report he wrote. They usually use the words he actually wrote. It's a genuine quote. However, it's taken out of context by removing the words that come afterwards in that report, which state that steps would have to be taken to protect astronauts from that hazard. The whole thing boils down to "it would be deadly, so we need to protect them from it". But quoting just the first part creates an utterly false impression of the text without lying at all.

It also makes it dangerous to disagree with the state, blow the whistle on any state or large organisation, talk about any abuse you might have suffered if the people or person who abused you is still alive or use the internet at all if anyone is looking for you (say, for example, an abusive ex you escaped from). The information will, of course, become publically available quickly because whatever systems it's stored on will be hacked. Massive personal data breaches are so routine nowadays that they're not even reported on unless there's something odd about them. Even, for example, the massive very serious breach at Equifax got very little attention for a very small amount of time.

It's far too harmful a move to be justified by some people talking drivel.
 
Last edited:
The slippery slope begins. One day we'll reach full circle and we'll be at the point where we can't read, can't say, do or think anything that goes against the government's views. Oh look, we're at Nazi Germany again.
 
Wasn't there a case a while back in Germany where a girl was threatened on the street by a gang of immigrants, and then when she posted her concerns about the influx of violent immigrants on her social media account the police paid her a visit and arrested her for 'hate speech' against immigrants.

Then a couple of months ago there was the 62 year old woman who shared an anti-immigration meme on her social media and then had her doors kicked in by the police and was dragged before the courts.
 
G-MAN2004 said:
The slippery slope begins. One day we'll reach full circle and we'll be at the point where we can't read, can't say, do or think anything that goes against the government's views. Oh look, we're at Nazi Germany again.
Click to expand...

The laws against Hate speech in the UK have existed since at least 1986. So when does this slipper slope get, well actually slippery?


The rest of your post is just more of the same inane babling. Hate speech laws have nothing to do with condemnation of the government. The government is not a protected entitiy, race, gender. etc.
 
Malevolence said:
Wasn't there a case a while back in Germany where a girl was threatened on the street by a gang of immigrants, and then when she posted her concerns about the influx of violent immigrants on her social media account the police paid her a visit and arrested her for 'hate speech' against immigrants.

Then a couple of months ago there was the 62 year old woman who shared an anti-immigration meme on her social media and then had her doors kicked in by the police and was dragged before the courts.
Click to expand...
You will have to post links
 
Malevolence said:
https://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/ar...-Volksverhetzung-auf-Facebook-verurteilt.html

Give me a few minutes and I'll dig out the link for the girl.
Click to expand...
My German is not as good as it should be nut it seems perfectly reasonably that she was found guilty of committing hate speech. As the judge said, it was not just the Facebook posts but her attitude and continued racist insults. All made even worse by the other content of of Facebook such as posts with photographs of Hitler.
 
Vonhelmet said:
Germany? They're one of the most successful countries in the world by just about any metric you care to name.
Click to expand...

I suspect Germany wont remain particular successful by those metrics for much more than a generation .... even with mass immigration of millions of people, who are unlikely to be positive contributors to German society anytime soon, their population is in freefall just behind Japan... who will at least have a relatively culturally homogenous population to incentivise the working young to subsidize the old in their dotage whilst holding the country together as one political unit......

Its all very well 'looking successful' when you have relatively low aggregated societal costs for child rearing and bearing but when a country is way below the 2.1 or so required replacement rate it is stealing from its future prosperity to fuel a boom in the present (or worse still just about hold its head above water)..... For much the same reason China's going to have some issues with a lot of children without siblings now having two parents and four grandparents potentially to support into old age thanks to the (now abandoned) one child per couple policy. What China doesn't have to worry about is one of the worlds most generous welfare states which is becoming an increasingly giant millstone around the neck of the Germans (and most other nations with large welfare states - mostly in the West)...

In China they abandon babies of the 'wrong' sex and just leave toddlers to die in the street as the rest of the populace walk by so I don't think elderly paupers in the country can look forward to a society that's going to look after them when the cant afford to look after themselves.... Maybe even more of them will go 'missing'?

Back to Germany..... of course with around 15% of those currently under 32 being Muslims (a percentage that's only likely to grow due to immigration and differentials in birth rates between groups) its a country (and not one that's alone) that's likely to witness a rather 'big' change in its politics and culture in a generation or two as its about to find that Islam isn't a race but that it is a political system which isn't even in the slightest bit compatible with contemporary enlightenment liberal culture and the laws formed and developed by it.....

Of course even without such a stark cultural divide between the young and the old in places like the UK we are already seeing a marked increase of resentment between the working young poor and the elderly that they are paying for in the present....if the cultural and political divide widens even more in countries like Germany between the old and the young, some of that latter of whom are bringing with them their own rather rigid, incompatible and inflexible political system... then Germany's much vaunted 'consensus' political system may be in for a shake up!

Back to hate speech....... of course some people (even on OcUK.... on these very forums) would label my above points at the very least 'racist' if not full on 'hate speech' without even trying to refute what I am saying as being untrue (probably because they can't) as a means to try and shut me up whilst they themselves pursue their own, I believe, ultimately self destructive urges to virtue signal and/or pursue their cultural Marxist agenda of tearing down the 'system' (that being some combination of or all of the apparently hetero normative, cis gendered, white privileged, patriarchal, ablist, capitalist system). Of course Marxism doesn't have a stellar record of building something constructive on the other side and has a well document and satired leaning towards totalitarian approaches to language usage so these people are at least in familiar company......

and of course Marxism is not alone in its desire to use the law to police the use of speech, especially that speech which it wishes to shut up not necessarily because its untrue but because it attacks the very premise of the belief system in question


Ill just leave my post with the friends and comrades of my current favourite cultural Marxist and member of BAMN/ refuse fascism ....

With company like this woman who thinks pretty much everything in the good old US of A is fascist but with a female member who cant bring herself to denounce communism never mind say she isn't a communist ...Yvette Felerca.....

'BAMN is committed to making real the ideal of "government of the people, by the people, for the people." But democracy, too, must be a sham as long as the fundamental inequalities of poverty, racism, and sexism deform the relations of political power along with access to educational and economic opportunities. Here again, America can only become what it should be through a national policy of affirmative action.'

'Affirmative action' of course being Marxism in action... 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'


The last thing I want to do is 'de platform' the woman in the video or to 'shut down' her free speech (sure I want her arrested if she assaults people like Felerca allegedly did ) I wish more people would listen to their views and make their own mind up about what's happening in academia....

Enjoy...

 
Last edited:
Vonhelmet said:
Yes, that's exactly what happened. I called you a racist nazi and it didn't work and I ran away.
Click to expand...

I'm just confused about why you felt the need to post saying that you were 'out'.............. the options were there for you to

1) Say nothing

or

2) For you to potentially make your case as to why German's prospects are better than I was suggesting....

But yet your reply was to suggest use of the terms 'virtue signalling' and 'Cultural Marxism' somehow invalidates my argument without further explanation?

I maintain that both phrases are useful describe actual things... i.e

1) the tendency for humans to want to appear 'virtuous' by making statements which bear little immediate cost to themselves but which they think demonstrate that they have some superior morals to others....

and 2) a system of belief that thinks that inequalities in outcome are due to a 'system' whereby those appearing to do better are 'oppressing' those doing not so well and that some form of external intervention is warranted to seek to forcibly 'rectify' this by the state and or society normally by seeking to pull down the 'system' in question.... often by violent means

Care to debate?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom