[Bobboau]

Who decides what is incitement to violence or to riot and what's not?

this is a good question, you seem to throw it out as if it was an answer to Ghostavo's point, but it just further reinforces it.

I didn't even know what race you are, let alone deliberately bring it up. I could have just as easily brought up being Muslim in America but then you get into problems with people correcting you if you use the word racist.

you seem to be implying that I'm not a minority that has ~"suffered systematic oppression for the last 200 years"~.

Hate speech laws aren't there to prosecute every single case of racist speech you know. Just incitement to violence. But you don't even believe that incitement to violence is a crime in the first place anyway so you're pretty much a lost cause in this debate anyway.

This debate is ABOUT 'incitement of violence' as a crime. That was the very founding issue of the thread. That's the charge Bahar Mustafa was issued. I'm a lost cause because I disagree with you about the main case the thread is based on?

For all we know the tweet was aimed at someone she'd been harassing.

She has had a pattern of showing off blatantly anti-white/male biases as if it were hilarious. It was surly about more than her one single tweet, but probably her presented attitude combined with her position as someone who is supposed to be promoting diversity and inclusive in a major public institution of learning.

[Scotty]

Who decides what is incitement to violence or to riot and what's not?

this is a good question, you seem to throw it out as if it was an answer to Ghostavo's point, but it just further reinforces it.

I've thus far avoided jumping into this one, but I can see a misunderstanding here that there's a chance to clear up before the quote chains get massive (seriously guys, please don't do those).

Kara's point is that incitement to violence and incitement to riot are currently things that are laws (bolded for emphasis not for volume) that no one has a problem with and that don't curtail freedom of expression and speech.  It's an oblique answer to Ghostavo's question, in that it brings up situations that are nearly identical in every phase of a legal argument, and that have demonstrably not destroyed society or the freedom of expression.

[Bobboau]

eh, I say again, someone getting arrested for this law is what started this whole thread. whether or not it should be a law is what is being argued. Many people DO have a problem with, because they DO think it curtails freedom of speech and expression. Just because it hasn't utterly destroyed civilization doesn't mean it hasn't hurt it. Just because it's something you take for granted as true doesn't make it so.

[karajorma]

And there you've basically reinforced my point. There is little point in debating whether laws on incitement to racial violence should exist with you when you don't believe that incitement to violence should be a law in the first place. But even in America with the 1st amendment, inciting to riot is a crime. So the debate has to go much deeper than I can be bothered to go. I'm only here to debate that hate laws are a necessary extension of the incitement laws. You don't believe in those laws so my entire point here is rather moot when it comes to what you're arguing.

you seem to be implying that I'm not a minority that has ~"suffered systematic oppression for the last 200 years"~.

Not as an atheist you aren't. Not unless you come from somewhere like the Middle East. Now if you want to claim that as a black man you feel that no one of your colour has ever feels pressured into silence, you can try to bring up that argument. But I doubt you'll win cause the pressure is there even for atheists who aren't suffering from that kind of oppression.

Kara's point is that incitement to violence and incitement to riot are currently things that are laws (bolded for emphasis not for volume) that no one has a problem with and that don't curtail freedom of expression and speech.

Problem is that there are two related debates going on at the same time. One on the validity of hate speech laws and one on the validity of any laws which curb free speech. Bob (and 666, I assume) are debating the second one, not the the first. Luis is debating the first, which is why we're agreeing a lot more.

[Grizzly]

She has had a pattern of showing off blatantly anti-white/male biases as if it were hilarious.

It is hilarious! As is her getting arrested over it. The whole point of stuff like KillAllMen is to satarize the feminazi slur by taking that slur to it's full implications and representing oneself as a genocidial maniac with feminist tendencies. The usual effect is that people who commonly use that same slur interrupt their conversations about thin skinned feminists without a sense of humour to send these women rape and death threats, missing the point like the hypocrites they are. See also: the masculinitysofragile hashtag.

And it gets better: The whole point of saying "You can't be racist/sexist against white men" is not that one can have a racist or sexist attitude towards white men. Rather, the point is that the institution they reside in prevent such racism from taking effect. Case in point: Her being charged for showing a hint of being racist and sexist against white men. She can't lose: Either she walks free and has succesfully trolled a bunch of people, or she is punished and proves her point.

[karajorma]

Except that you can be racist/sexist towards white men. There are numerous cases of people losing their jobs or being hounded on social media to the point of near breakdown over remarkably trivial things.

[Bobboau]

Not to mention the whole "Listen and Believe" attitude. I believe we have a few people here who have suffered as a direct result of that alone.

My point with the race thing was that the color of my skin, the concavity of my genitals, what I believe to be true about the universe doesn't change the truth of what I am saying (though that last one would, in a general sense, likely lead me to different conclusions it wouldn't change IF what I was say was true or not if I was saying the same thing). If you agree with that then I think we should just drop this line, though if you want to tell me why the color of my skin changes the validity of my argument I'd be interested in hearing how.

Now I want to demonstrate something. ahem..

    I will kill you all tonight while you sleep.

There I just threatened everyone in this thread. If you would be so kind as to observe the sky is still up above, your limbs are still attached, the world is remarkably similar to how it was before I did that. In fact one would have a very difficult time telling that anything in the world had changed at all. and yet, I have now broken the law of the UK, and law you propose to be a good idea in principal.

[Grizzly]

Except that you can be racist/sexist towards white men. There are numerous cases of people losing their jobs or being hounded on social media to the point of near breakdown over remarkably trivial things.

I'd argue that people get hounden on social media to the point of near breakdown due to a massive variety of reasons and that bringing it up as an example of how racist or sexist attitudes can work against white men is missing atleast one inbetween step.

Not to mention the whole "Listen and Believe" attitude. I believe we have a few people here who have suffered as a direct result of that alone.

My point with the race thing was that the color of my skin, the concavity of my genitals, what I believe to be true about the universe doesn't change the truth of what I am saying (though that last one would, in a general sense, likely lead me to different conclusions it wouldn't change IF what I was say was true or not if I was saying the same thing). If you agree with that then I think we should just drop this line, though if you want to tell me why the color of my skin changes the validity of my argument I'd be interested in hearing how.

Now I want to demonstrate something. ahem..

    I will kill you all tonight while you sleep.

There I just threatened everyone in this thread. If you would be so kind as to observe the sky is still up above, your limbs are still attached, the world is remarkably similar to how it was before I did that. In fact one would have a very difficult time telling that anything in the world had changed at all. and yet, I have now broken the law of the UK, and law you propose to be a good idea in principal.

On the other hand, bobbeau, saying that you will kill me in my sleep tonight brings nothing to the conversation at all, and it's very very very easy for you not to say it. I'd let it stand simply because I think I can trust you on not carrying those things out (even though it does make me slightly uncomfortable), but when the entire board starts doing it, including people who have acces to my IP adress, I won't sleep at all tonight.

[Bobboau]

I think I have proven to be lazy over the years so maybe you're on to something.

but I would digress I think does bring something to the discussion, it shows how vacuous all the hysteria is. How it's not about protecting people but about controlling undesirables

[Grizzly]

Really, controlling undesirables? Really?

Death threats, the athmosphere of fear they create when you get hundreds of them without knowing how serious the other person on the line is, does hurt. It hurts because seeing people going trough such extreme lenghts to let you know they hate you for what other people said you did. Worse, you can never know the intent behind them - and you can argue that issuing death threats is essentially like crying wolf, but that story ended in death. It genuinely is about protecting people.

Why the **** do I even have to explain this to you?

[Luis Dias]

It is hilarious! As is her getting arrested over it. The whole point of stuff like KillAllMen is to satarize the feminazi slur by taking that slur to it's full implications and representing oneself as a genocidial maniac with feminist tendencies. The usual effect is that people who commonly use that same slur interrupt their conversations about thin skinned feminists without a sense of humour to send these women rape and death threats, missing the point like the hypocrites they are. See also: the masculinitysofragile hashtag.

Well, I for one can see a difference between criticizing an ideology (feminism) and against the very notion of maleness. I don't think this difference is that hard to understand, but I might be missing something invisible here. It's a double standard of a sort, when it's obvious that if "meninists" had started that kind of hashtag against femininity itself, they would have been portrayed as mysoginists. I think in such a case it would be really hard to claim they weren't being mysoginistic. They could then whine all they wanted on how "they were not really being true in their mockery of femininity, they were just pretending", I don't think you'd give them that kind of benefit of the doubt, but nonetheless here you are almost smugly telling us that it's obvious we should give these people not only the benefit of the doubt, but our understanding and support.

No. While I do understand its total lack of seriousness, I think the "jokes" fell flat and merely exposed their inner passive aggressive traits, their misandrism, narcissism, autism, etc. However, even despite the fact that I don't like that kind of humour, who am I to stop anyone else from entertaining themselves? I mean, be my guests. No one was hurt by all this poor taste.

And it gets better: The whole point of saying "You can't be racist/sexist against white men" is not that one can have a racist or sexist attitude towards white men. Rather, the point is that the institution they reside in prevent such racism from taking effect.

Well that's wrong on many levels. First, language does matter. If you say you can't be "racist against white men", then that's what you mean, and not something else. The fringe left has this tendency to rewrite words and concepts as they please so they can get away with saying the nastiest **** to you and then coming back with "Oh but you see, in NewSpeak, what I have done is not really racism, coz Racism = Power + Privilege" (Oh yeah, these people are that mathematically impaired and say that sentence without skipping a beat). I'm sure that kind of speech will go well with the Judge, who is most probably bemusing at the outset of the case and thinking "I'm going to release this girl within a minute or so", only to hear this "intellectual artillery" of an argument and perhaps starting to have second thoughts about how safe is society with such an asinine ideologue on the loose.

The other wrong moment here is that "Whiteness" is something now that encapsulate the entirety of a human's identity now. So we have these women within the higher class (Laura Penny anyone?) telling "men" (some of which are living under bridges) that they are "all" much more privileged than her. It doesn't matter if she's driving a porsche or wearing two iWatches or whatever. She will spit at you for being a man working hard with a paltry wage and barely managing to keep a roof and she will call it "punching up".

And people eat this **** up. It's incredible.

Case in point: Her being charged for showing a hint of being racist and sexist against white men. She can't lose: Either she walks free and has succesfully trolled a bunch of people, or she is punished and proves her point.

Let's totally forget that Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn just went to the UN proposing that rules should be enacted against people who said that "They Suck". Let's totally forget that it was the Left that brought about these same Hate Speech Laws against racism and so on that are getting her. No. Let's blame the application of a law proposed and enacted by leftist activists against sexism and racism to.... wait for it.... The Patriarchy!

Because that totally makes sense! That's absolutely not a brainmelt of lacanian proportions!

[Ghostavo]

Case in point: Her being charged for showing a hint of being racist and sexist against white men. She can't lose: Either she walks free and has succesfully trolled a bunch of people, or she is punished and proves her point.

I answered this before. Before you can successfully accuse the London police of racism or sexism you'd have to show that the London police is ignoring Londoners who act in the same manner as her.

You are trying to show that because worldwide there is a different standard for free speech and law enforcement, something something something, sexism and racism.

[Luis Dias]

It's worse than that. He's accusing the police of enforcing the laws that activists like her proposed being enacted in Law. You can't have a bigger facepalm than that.

[Grizzly]

Case in point: Her being charged for showing a hint of being racist and sexist against white men. She can't lose: Either she walks free and has succesfully trolled a bunch of people, or she is punished and proves her point.

I answered this before. Before you can successfully accuse the London police of racism or sexism you'd have to show that the London police is ignoring Londoners who act in the same manner as her.

You are trying to show that because worldwide there is a different standard for free speech and law enforcement, something something something, sexism and racism.

I'm not accusing the london police force of racism or sexism, I am stating that it, as an institution, is preventing racism and sexism against white males.

[Ghostavo]

You are implying that the same institution wouldn't do the same towards any other group, i.e. you are implying they are sexist/racist.

[Grizzly]

I wouldn't go that far, but based from what I have seen I am rather skeptical that anyone except her is going to get trouble for this... whatever it is.

[Ghostavo]

There are news of people getting arrested in commonwealth countries for using speech with contents that skirt these laws over the years.

There was a guy arrested for tweeting he would bomb the airport as a joke.
There was a guy arrested for disagreeing with two women.

But somehow it's only an issue worthy of attention when Bahar Mustafa gets charged.

Let me be clear again, I am against these laws and against her being charged. However, I don't claim that the guy that was arrested for saying he would bomb the airport was a victim of misandry, why would I claim that Bahar Mustafa is a victim of misogyny when she gets charged?


Long story short, there is a tendency to blame misogyny every time a woman has something bad happen to her.

P.S.
Info regarding the case I mention above for those interested

[Grizzly]

I'd argue that threatening to bomb an airport is a bit more... realistic? Crying fire in a theater and that sorta thing. Not sure about the second example you mention, but I must say I'm not really willing to defend my obviously under-researched points at ths point (esp. as we're then again devolving into this he-said she-said ****).

Long story short, there is a tendency to blame misogyny every time a woman has something bad happen to her.

There is actually research that shows this particular tendency as being somewhat accurate.

[Ghostavo]

So are the men who are being harassed, victims of misandry too?

[666maslo666]

Really, controlling undesirables? Really?

Death threats, the athmosphere of fear they create when you get hundreds of them without knowing how serious the other person on the line is, does hurt. It hurts because seeing people going trough such extreme lenghts to let you know they hate you for what other people said you did. Worse, you can never know the intent behind them - and you can argue that issuing death threats is essentially like crying wolf, but that story ended in death. It genuinely is about protecting people.

Why the **** do I even have to explain this to you?

It may hurt if someone is a more sensitive person and doesnt know that internet trolls should just be ignored in 99.9% of cases, but still, hurt feelings is not grounds for any criminal action. Protecting hurt feelings is not a job for the police, lol.

Protecting people from physical harm is, and in that case, I would argue that punishing threats is not just ineffective, but counterproductive. Because threats can act as a warning. We want the crazies to speak up before they do something.

So yes, it is mostly about controlling undesirables.