|
|
Post by captslapper on Dec 22, 2021 16:21:19 GMT
I started a thread about the recent Free Speech victories in the High Court, on DATM. It disappeared pronto. I really don't get it Nothing politics at all they've basically said. So that will account for alot of things then on there. If it's the case, it's well and truly gone to shit Be interesting to see if they'd get voted off if the site held a vote to replace them. Not that it would. Their idea of democracy, as they've confirmed themselves, is amongst their 3 person dictatorship and no further and 2 of the 3 at least are clearly revelling in this little bit of 'power' they have managed to get in their lives. It doesnt seem to matter to them in the slightest what the members want. Be it discussing transfers in or out of the club on the board thats actually for Town related things. Or banning long standing posters. Or banning any topic that isn't football related or utterly benign and trivial. Or even being able to criticise them as administrators ( as I found out !) They run the site for themselves now it seems, censorship and lack of democracy reign, with the end goal being that they wont have anything to do as admins. What a fucking snooze fest. |
|
|
|
Post by realmadkid on Dec 22, 2021 16:45:18 GMT
I really don't get it Nothing politics at all they've basically said. So that will account for alot of things then on there. If it's the case, it's well and truly gone to shit Be interesting to see if they'd get voted off if the site held a vote to replace them. Not that it would. Their idea of democracy, as they've confirmed themselves, is amongst their 3 person dictatorship and no further and 2 of the 3 at least are clearly revelling in this little bit of 'power' they have managed to get in their lives. It doesnt seem to matter to them in the slightest what the members want. Be it discussing transfers in or out of the club on the board thats actually for Town related things. Or banning long standing posters. Or banning any topic that isn't football related or utterly benign and trivial. Or even being able to criticise them as administrators ( as I found out !) They run the site for themselves now it seems, censorship and lack of democracy reign, with the end goal being that they wont have anything to do as admins. What a fucking snooze fest. What did you get banned for mate? |
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Dec 22, 2021 16:47:12 GMT
Perhaps he has earned the right to a little self pity after having a number of his sold out gigs cancelled, and being dropped by his agent after other acts threatened the agent? Not everybody likes Lawrence. I get that. But this does appear to be another classic example of cancel culture in action. His cancellation was certainly applauded by some at DATM. His self-pity was around long before any cancelling of gigs in the wake of his ill advised puns about the England team...he used to be on Stand Up For The Week where he was tediously dull. Do you believe that his cancellation was justified? That is the issue here, opinions aside. I quite like some of his stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Dec 22, 2021 17:00:42 GMT
Some interesting stats, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deep Space on Dec 22, 2021 17:05:39 GMT
I've said before on DATM but, with the odd exception of stunningly wealthy or powerful people, nobody in any society we know about in any culture throughout history has ever had an absolute right to free speech. You certainly won't find any point in British history where it has ever existed. So to frame a discussion in terms of expecting a right to be able to say whatever you want, it never did exist & probably never will.
What does change of course is how the argument plays out. History is littered with examples of groups feeling marginalised who will frequently turn to violent and extreme measures to enforce something they want to see happen. Whether it's the ultra-violent protests of the Peasants' Revolt, Luddites, Chartists or Suffragettes, breaking the law got them closer to where they wanted to be. So as a tactic (threaten or indeed inflict violence on your opponents to force them to give in or shut up) it's nothing really new. Some are now seen as heroes; others (Oswald Moseley's Fascists for example) ended up on the wrong side of history. In 100 years time, who the hell knows how all this will be viewed & what pressure groups will be fighting the exact same battles with the same tactics?
Ultimately, if we really want to promote free speech, attaching labels to points of view really doesn't help. You can call me a wokie & I can call you a racist & we just end up in a raspberry-blowing contest. I have huge concerns if I'm honest about many aspects of modern society & culture, & I don't necessarily have major disagreements with people about the threats from cancel culture, such as it is. But I think it's important not to shift it into a polarised argument, because in truth there are countless shades of opinion that sit between the extremes we like to focus on.
|
|
|
|
Post by captslapper on Dec 22, 2021 17:06:34 GMT
Be interesting to see if they'd get voted off if the site held a vote to replace them. Not that it would. Their idea of democracy, as they've confirmed themselves, is amongst their 3 person dictatorship and no further and 2 of the 3 at least are clearly revelling in this little bit of 'power' they have managed to get in their lives. It doesnt seem to matter to them in the slightest what the members want. Be it discussing transfers in or out of the club on the board thats actually for Town related things. Or banning long standing posters. Or banning any topic that isn't football related or utterly benign and trivial. Or even being able to criticise them as administrators ( as I found out !) They run the site for themselves now it seems, censorship and lack of democracy reign, with the end goal being that they wont have anything to do as admins. What a fucking snooze fest. What did you get banned for mate? It was actually quite funny. Some guy complained that threads were being 'hijacked' into discussions about covid or politics. I agreed really but explained it was due to the cack-handed way the admins were running the site. Removing where these things could be discussed so it was bound to spill over onto other threads. Because, you know, lots of members WANT to talk about these things. Kenny deleted the whole thread. So I asked on another thread called 'new theme' ( about BDGs shit migraine enducing makeover of the board) whether the new theme was totalitarian fascist dictatorship where any criticism of the admins was banned. Kenny deleted that whole thread. So I started a thread asking if aswell as a ban on politics, there was now a ban on criticising the admins? And will the site rules be altered to reflect this. Artysid ( someone I row with a lot ) agreed and was equally pissed off with it. Kenny deleted the thread. I started another thread asking the same question about the rules and basically pointing out how they were utterly ruining the board and not interested in the slightest what the members want. Kenny deleted the thread. Think I then pointed out that DATM was now what a forum would be like if Stalin was an admin and in an act of hilarious irony, Kenny deleted the thread and banned me!  Weirdly the following morning I was able to post again. So I asked the same question,, got it deleted again. Then pointed out how they'd ruined the site and that id fuck off and give this one a go from now on... had that deleted too. At no point did Kenny say a thing. Not one word of explanation or defence. I guess totalitarian fascist dictators drunk on their power dont feel the need to! |
|
|
|
Post by realmadkid on Dec 22, 2021 17:37:26 GMT
What did you get banned for mate? It was actually quite funny. Some guy complained that threads were being 'hijacked' into discussions about covid or politics. I agreed really but explained it was due to the cack-handed way the admins were running the site. Removing where these things could be discussed so it was bound to spill over onto other threads. Because, you know, lots of members WANT to talk about these things. Kenny deleted the whole thread. So I asked on another thread called 'new theme' ( about BDGs shit migraine enducing makeover of the board) whether the new theme was totalitarian fascist dictatorship where any criticism of the admins was banned. Kenny deleted that whole thread. So I started a thread asking if aswell as a ban on politics, there was now a ban on criticising the admins? And will the site rules be altered to reflect this. Artysid ( someone I row with a lot ) agreed and was equally pissed off with it. Kenny deleted the thread. I started another thread asking the same question about the rules and basically pointing out how they were utterly ruining the board and not interested in the slightest what the members want. Kenny deleted the thread. Think I then pointed out that DATM was now what a forum would be like if Stalin was an admin and in an act of hilarious irony, Kenny deleted the thread and banned me! Weirdly the following morning I was able to post again. So I asked the same question,, got it deleted again. Then pointed out how they'd ruined the site and that id fuck off and give this one a go from now on... had that deleted too. At no point did Kenny say a thing. Not one word of explanation or defence. I guess totalitarian fascist dictators drunk on their power dont feel the need to! You have to laugh don’t you? Its either that or cry!! Jeez!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2021 17:44:24 GMT
His self-pity was around long before any cancelling of gigs in the wake of his ill advised puns about the England team...he used to be on Stand Up For The Week where he was tediously dull. Do you believe that his cancellation was justified? That is the issue here, opinions aside. I quite like some of his stuff. I believe that the venues that cancelled his gigs had every right to do so...if on seeing and hearing more about him and the bad smell he decided to attract, they felt he didn't fit in with their branding/positioning. I don't think Slipknot would get booked to play at Cathedral House in Hudds either. But theoretically COULD...and then might subsequently get the rug pulled if they put their faces (🤷♂️) above the parapet and someone realised what they were. I'm sure there's plenty of venues that he could get a spot at if he tried. But...I'm not that bothered either way...I'm too busy googling 'provocative sausage eating' and trying to decide if I'm for or against Towns latest global partnership. I think I'm broadly for...I've no idea what BK8 do though, I assume some sausage based offshoot of Burger King! 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Dec 22, 2021 18:21:38 GMT
I've said before on DATM but, with the odd exception of stunningly wealthy or powerful people, nobody in any society we know about in any culture throughout history has ever had an absolute right to free speech. You certainly won't find any point in British history where it has ever existed. So to frame a discussion in terms of expecting a right to be able to say whatever you want, it never did exist & probably never will. What does change of course is how the argument plays out. History is littered with examples of groups feeling marginalised who will frequently turn to violent and extreme measures to enforce something they want to see happen. Whether it's the ultra-violent protests of the Peasants' Revolt, Luddites, Chartists or Suffragettes, breaking the law got them closer to where they wanted to be. So as a tactic (threaten or indeed inflict violence on your opponents to force them to give in or shut up) it's nothing really new. Some are now seen as heroes; others (Oswald Moseley's Fascists for example) ended up on the wrong side of history. In 100 years time, who the hell knows how all this will be viewed & what pressure groups will be fighting the exact same battles with the same tactics? Ultimately, if we really want to promote free speech, attaching labels to points of view really doesn't help. You can call me a wokie & I can call you a racist & we just end up in a raspberry-blowing contest. I have huge concerns if I'm honest about many aspects of modern society & culture, & I don't necessarily have major disagreements with people about the threats from cancel culture, such as it is. But I think it's important not to shift it into a polarised argument, because in truth there are countless shades of opinion that sit between the extremes we like to focus on. Agree with most of that, but we have long had laws against incitement to violence, slander, and misrepresentation. This non-crime hate-crime business was getting out of hand. Two classic examples were the Nazi pug debacle, and the Liverpool lass who posted the lyrics of a rap song on SM as a tribute after her friend died in a road accident. It was his favourite tune. However, because the lyrics contained the N word, she was fined and convicted of a hate crime. Ridiculous in any rational analysis. Both came about after someone was 'offended'. |
|
|
|
Post by tinpot on Dec 22, 2021 19:24:59 GMT
I've said before on DATM but, with the odd exception of stunningly wealthy or powerful people, nobody in any society we know about in any culture throughout history has ever had an absolute right to free speech. You certainly won't find any point in British history where it has ever existed. So to frame a discussion in terms of expecting a right to be able to say whatever you want, it never did exist & probably never will. What does change of course is how the argument plays out. History is littered with examples of groups feeling marginalised who will frequently turn to violent and extreme measures to enforce something they want to see happen. Whether it's the ultra-violent protests of the Peasants' Revolt, Luddites, Chartists or Suffragettes, breaking the law got them closer to where they wanted to be. So as a tactic (threaten or indeed inflict violence on your opponents to force them to give in or shut up) it's nothing really new. Some are now seen as heroes; others (Oswald Moseley's Fascists for example) ended up on the wrong side of history. In 100 years time, who the hell knows how all this will be viewed & what pressure groups will be fighting the exact same battles with the same tactics? Ultimately, if we really want to promote free speech, attaching labels to points of view really doesn't help. You can call me a wokie & I can call you a racist & we just end up in a raspberry-blowing contest. I have huge concerns if I'm honest about many aspects of modern society & culture, & I don't necessarily have major disagreements with people about the threats from cancel culture, such as it is. But I think it's important not to shift it into a polarised argument, because in truth there are countless shades of opinion that sit between the extremes we like to focus on. Agree with most of that, but we have long had laws against incitement to violence, slander, and misrepresentation. This non-crime hate-crime business was getting out of hand. Two classic examples were the Nazi pug debacle, and the Liverpool lass who posted the lyrics of a rap song on SM as a tribute after her friend died in a road accident. It was his favourite tune. However, because the lyrics contained the N word, she was fined and convicted of a hate crime. Ridiculous in any rational analysis. Both came about after someone was 'offended'. Yep. This is the main bit that concerns me. If I go around urging violence against another section of society, that's not only morally unacceptable, it's illegal. Fair enough. I can appreciate that some stuff is fairly borderline whether something should be illegal or not, and different people on both sides of the debate might have strong arguments to defend their position of whether it's morally acceptable or not, or whether it should be legally acceptable. That there is dispute over where the line should be drawn is understandable. But.... fuck me sideways, posting the lyrics to a friend's favourite song after he's died or making a joke that absolutely relies on the notion that Nazis aren't very nice isn't in that middle ground. Jeremy Corbyn recently (successfully) sued somebody for making a crass joke about him. Whether those jokes were funny or not is contestable. Humour (like offence!) is subjective. This isn't just because I'd rather err on the side of free speech & open dialogue - this shit doesn't even seem to me to be borderline. I'm left to wonder what the rules are. |
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Dec 22, 2021 22:16:02 GMT
Agree with most of that, but we have long had laws against incitement to violence, slander, and misrepresentation. This non-crime hate-crime business was getting out of hand. Two classic examples were the Nazi pug debacle, and the Liverpool lass who posted the lyrics of a rap song on SM as a tribute after her friend died in a road accident. It was his favourite tune. However, because the lyrics contained the N word, she was fined and convicted of a hate crime. Ridiculous in any rational analysis. Both came about after someone was 'offended'. Yep. This is the main bit that concerns me. If I go around urging violence against another section of society, that's not only morally unacceptable, it's illegal. Fair enough. I can appreciate that some stuff is fairly borderline whether something should be illegal or not, and different people on both sides of the debate might have strong arguments to defend their position of whether it's morally acceptable or not, or whether it should be legally acceptable. That there is dispute over where the line should be drawn is understandable. But.... fuck me sideways, posting the lyrics to a friend's favourite song after he's died or making a joke that absolutely relies on the notion that Nazis aren't very nice isn't in that middle ground. Jeremy Corbyn recently (successfully) sued somebody for making a crass joke about him. Whether those jokes were funny or not is contestable. Humour (like offence!) is subjective. This isn't just because I'd rather err on the side of free speech & open dialogue - this shit doesn't even seem to me to be borderline. I'm left to wonder what the rules are. The definition of hate speech was "in the perception of the victim". However, in view of this landmark ruling... |
|
|
|
Post by captslapper on Dec 22, 2021 23:34:33 GMT
'In the perception of the victim' is dangerous enough, but when we have large swathes of society seemingly desperate to be seen as victimised and to be able to use being discriminated against as the reason why their lives arent what they hoped they would be, then its doubly dangerous.
The police like the MSM have become little more than patsies for these groups.
So fearful of being called out for being not fully in support of whatever minority are claiming to be oppressed, that they'll support any attacks on freedom of speech and thought that theyre told to.
|
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Dec 28, 2021 16:13:58 GMT
'In the perception of the victim' is dangerous enough, but when we have large swathes of society seemingly desperate to be seen as victimised and to be able to use being discriminated against as the reason why their lives arent what they hoped they would be, then its doubly dangerous. The police like the MSM have become little more than patsies for these groups. So fearful of being called out for being not fully in support of whatever minority are claiming to be oppressed, that they'll support any attacks on freedom of speech and thought that theyre told to. Aye, someone recently described the police as 'paramilitary social workers'. I think it was Douglas Murray. Beautifully put, I thought. |
|
|
|
Post by tinpot on Dec 31, 2021 9:22:38 GMT
Some interesting stats, IMHO. I'd love to know how "offensive speech" is quantified or defined. Screaming the "n" word in a black person's face unprovoked should not be considered an equivalent 'offence' as using a phrase that is now outdated - IMO. Unfortunately, it does seem that mine is not a universally held view. The difficulty I find here is that I want to oppose racism, but I'm just not very good at it. I know that "Coloured" is offensive. I know that "BAME" is offensive. I know that "POC/People of Colour" is now at best outdated & will earn you a disapproving look as a minimum. "BIPOC" (Black, indigenous POC) is the latest term I'm aware of but for the life of me I can't see how that's any less offensive or any more acceptable than any* of the other phrases I've used in this post so far. I suspect that's probably deemed offensive by now anyway. Unfortunately, I don't know what words I'm supposed to use, so when somebody uses an offensive term I couldn't correct them whether I wanted to or not. Of course, I could always ask, but then there's the hostile response of "Educate yourself". Well, I can, but the internet alone is a very big place, so the chances of me coming up with the "correct" answer as seen by the SJW brigade are slim at best. For the most part it's ok. Those words aren't regularly found in my lexicon anyway, just because I rarely need to use them. "People from various racial or ethnic backgrounds" is probably the term I use. And I'm yet to meet anyone from any racial or ethnic background that's offended by those terms anyway - bar one. The only people I've met that seemed to be offended are white, British. Which begs the question, what exactly are these white, British "anti-racists" trying to achieve? * The reason for the word, "Coloured" being offensive tbf does make sense to me - given its historical links to US segregation under Jim Crow. The rest, I've no idea why any are considered better or worse than others. |
|
|
|
Post by tinpot on Dec 31, 2021 9:26:06 GMT
FTR I found the slogan used by a major political party in the last general election grossly offensive. "For the Many, Not The Privileged Few". Sickened me to my core.
Should I have been protected from that?
|
|
