Man sends banana to black mans table in Wetherspoons pub

[Semple]

LOL

Just look him angrily in the face and bite the banana in half. Thats how you beat this, NOT calling the cops to try to prove someone did it intentionally lol. Tell me how will they find out?


If you can prove it was done intentionally sure but its impossible to prove he has a bad legal representation i guess? Also this kind of sets precident about fruits and races? Best watch out who you offer fruit too!

It would have been easy to find out.

The police would have gone back to weatherspoons and would have looked at the ordering system to see who had ordered the banana. I can't remember if you need an account to use the app, but either way he would have had to put his card details in or paypal to complete the purchase, all which would have linked to the person placing the order.

The guy was clearly an idiot, and knew exactly what he was doing. If he'd ordered an apple with the banana then it would have looked more like an accident.

 

[Rofflay]

When ***** exist alongside of the rest of us who would openly exercise their ability to discriminate and pour hate on certain people, the majority of society have decided that a line should be drawn somewhere and the right for people to be ***** is worth impinging so that we can live like civilised people where minorities aren't maligned due to irrational hatred.

If you are concerned that the laws in this country are limiting you from anything other than being a nasty **** from the point of view of freedom of speech, I'd be happy to hear an example.

This forum is not going to let me post it, Indeed normally some mod who has opposite views deletes the post and wastes me time. So you want to debate me about free speech on a platform that has controlled speech.

Im out, I had my fill for today if i stay here longer my brain will shrink and shrivel up and die. Good luck fellas.

 

[JohnG7]

I am at table 7 (lucky) feel free to send me a NV 3080 or 3090 (even better)



Wait I am a so called "console peasant" in your eyes, so you think you are better than me all you are in a PC Elitist.

 

[Caracus2k]

But also not go down the slippery slope of allowing hate speech to flow and lead to genocide?

We already have laws in the UK covering incitement to violence.

Where's the evidence that surpressing so called 'hate' speech prevents 'genocide'

There were strong hate speech laws in the German Weimar Republic, including against "insulting religious communities". Hundreds of Nazi affiliates were prosecuted under these laws.

So I would suggest there's some evidence that strong 'hate speech' laws do not prevent a slide into tyranny and potential genocide when used in otherwise largely democratic systems.

 

[dl8860]

This forum is not going to let me post it, Indeed normally some mod who has opposite views deletes the post and wastes me time. So you want to debate me about free speech on a platform that has controlled speech.

Im out, I had my fill for today if i stay here longer my brain will shrink and shrivel up and die. Good luck fellas.

 

[Roar87]

When ***** exist alongside of the rest of us who would openly exercise their ability to discriminate and pour hate on certain people, the majority of society have decided that a line should be drawn somewhere and the right for people to be ***** is worth impinging so that we can live like civilised people where minorities aren't maligned due to irrational hatred.

If you are concerned that the laws in this country are limiting you from anything other than being a nasty **** from the point of view of freedom of speech, I'd be happy to hear an example.

Why do we need the government to intervene if the rest of society also finds it abhorrent? Wouldn't we just not employ people who are openly racist and not associate with them, would that not be a better solution than handing over our ability to express ourselves to a government who we may currently like at the risk of that changing down the line?

 

[Dis86]

When ***** exist alongside of the rest of us who would openly exercise their ability to discriminate and pour hate on certain people, the majority of society have decided that a line should be drawn somewhere and the right for people to be ***** is worth impinging so that we can live like civilised people where minorities aren't maligned due to irrational hatred.

If you are concerned that the laws in this country are limiting you from anything other than being a nasty **** from the point of view of freedom of speech, I'd be happy to hear an example.

Why can't that line be discrimination is bad? Instead of suppression of people's opinions?

 

[dl8860]

Why do we need the government to intervene if the rest of society also finds it abhorrent? Wouldn't we just not employ people who are openly racist and not associate with them, would that not be a better solution than handing over our ability to express ourselves to a government who we may currently like at the risk of that changing down the line?

In essence you are basically asking why laws exist in the first place aren't you?

 

[dl8860]

Why can't that line be discrimination is bad? Instead of suppression of people's opinions?

Because we've collectively come to the conclusion and arrangement that the damage done by the expression of those opinions isn't worth the freedom of the people to express them.

It is sometimes a fine line, but almost all civilised countries have arrived at the same conclusion that although not a perfect solution, it's worth limiting hateful speech.

 

[FoxEye]

Because we've collectively come to the conclusion and arrangement that the damage done by the expression of those opinions isn't worth the freedom of the people to express them.

And yet clearly we do need to have a line drawn somewhere.

As said earlier, some people are genuinely "offended" by "cultural appropriation." If offense is the criterion, then this should/might soon be a hate crime?

e: Some people will get very offended if you talk about the life and times of Mohammed, and his interactions with women/girls.

Hate crime?

 

[dl8860]

And yet clearly we do need to have a line drawn somewhere.

As said earlier, some people are genuinely "offended" by "cultural appropriation." If offense is the criterion, then this should/might soon be a hate crime?

e: Some people will get very offended if you talk about the life and times of Mohammed, and his interactions with women/girls.

Hate crime?

I just said it's a fine line, acknowledging that drawing a line is always a compromise. I think it's right that there should be ongoing discourse about where that line is, the discussion is good. But people saying any limit to speech is wrong are well wide of the mark imo.

Offense is certainly not the criterion, nor should it ever be for the reason you've said.

I think you need to think a bit more about what offense means though. You can be offended because you thought someone was rude, or you can be offended to the point that you feel intimidated or targetted. Maybe not to the point of feeling directly physically threatened, but that is closer to what the criterion is.

I know we're now getting back to the notion of what's the difference between racism and insulting someone because they are ginger. That's something 12 year olds might come up with and think they are clever, I'm literally not getting into a debate on that.

 

[FoxEye]

I just said it's a fine line, acknowledging that drawing a line is always a compromise. I think it's right that there should be ongoing discourse about where that line is, the discussion is good. But people saying any limit to speech is wrong are well wide of the mark imo.

Offense is certainly not the criterion, nor should it ever be for the reason you've said.

I think you need to think a bit more about what offense means though. You can be offended because you thought someone was rude, or you can be offended to the point that you feel intimidated or targetted. Maybe not to the point of feeling directly physically threatened, but that is closer to what the criterion is.

I know we're now getting back to the notion of what's the difference between racism and insulting someone because they are ginger. That's something 12 year olds might come up with and think they are clever, I'm literally not getting into a debate on that.

Well if it's not about offense, then it's about the other thing you mentioned - feeling threatened.

Did the chap in the pub feel threatened by the banana? If so, is that a reasonable reaction?

I think it's telling that there is a lot of dismissal about the potential misery inflected by bullying against (eg) gingers. And yet with a wave of the hand, it's dismissed as not even worthy of being in the same discussion.

It's telling.

 

[dl8860]

Well if it's not about offense, then it's about the other thing you mentioned - feeling threatened.

Did the chap in the pub feel threatened by the banana? If so, is that a reasonable reaction?

Do you think black footballers who have bananas thrown at them and monkey chants feel threatened? How could you not see that this is in the same vein to that? So yes he definitely could feel threatened. He's essentially sat in a pub and some other person who he's sharing the space with has anonymously sent him a message that they think he is subhuman. If you were in his shoes, don't you think you might have cause for concern that if someone around you thinks you are subhuman and has just displayed that in an act of contempt.

I think it's telling that there is a lot of dismissal about the potential misery inflected by bullying against (eg) gingers. And yet with a wave of the hand, it's dismissed as not even worthy of being in the same discussion.

It's telling.

You... think I hate gingers?

Or have an irrational love for ethnic minorities?

Or maybe it's that I can discern that allowing the free expression of hatred of particular races is much more dangerous due to the literally overwhelming historical context.

 

[Roar87]

In essence you are basically asking why laws exist in the first place aren't you?

No, I believe free speech should be an inalienable right, as in America, because the ability to regulate speech can have drastic and dire outcomes in the future that isn't worth the trade off in allowing people to utter what we may deem "hate speech".

 

[dl8860]

No, I believe free speech should be an inalienable right, as in America, because the ability to regulate speech can have drastic and dire outcomes in the future that isn't worth the trade off in allowing people to utter what we may deem "hate speech".

Sure, that just where we agree to disagree isn't it. I was pointing out that your first sentence seemed to be saying you didn't think we should hand any responsibility over to the government for anything at all.

 

[Unseul]

No, I believe free speech should be an inalienable right, as in America, because the ability to regulate speech can have drastic and dire outcomes in the future that isn't worth the trade off in allowing people to utter what we may deem "hate speech".

Shouting "Fire" inside a cinema full of people, when there's no fire?

 

[Roar87]

Sure, that just where we agree to disagree isn't it. I was pointing out that your first sentence seemed to be saying you didn't think we should hand any responsibility over to the government for anything at all.

It doesn't, speech doesn't need to be regulated, hurt feelings or offense isn't the same as material loss or physical harm. That's why the concept of free speech exists and the concept of free murder or rape doesn't.

Shouting "Fire" inside a cinema full of people, when there's no fire?

Free speech doesn't cover calls to action or violence. It covers expression. You clearly know this by citing the specific example you just did so why bother making it a point of debate?

 

[AiiR]

.

 

[Dis86]

Actually breaking into your house and car? Proving it was definitely him? Recognisable by anyone?

Or CCTV showing someone that looked like it could be someone who the copper recognised? Or identifiable but not actually filmed in the act?

Or inadmissible because your CCTV didn't meet regulations?

Actually breaking in. Didn't take anything, caused no damage. Identifiable and filmed in the act. Literally looked directly at the camera as he went through the front door then must have realised what it was and bolted.

 

[FoxEye]

You... think I hate gingers?

Or have an irrational love for ethnic minorities?

Or maybe it's that I can discern that allowing the free expression of hatred of particular races is much more dangerous due to the literally overwhelming historical context.

Well, funny you should say that.

There is also a history of persecuting gingers (and albinos) as well.

They were at various times associated with witchcraft, Judaism, being cursed for their sins, etc. And this did in fact result in being persecuted and even killed.

Perhaps they have more in common than you realise with your casual dismissal