Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
New Server | HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Racism, Policing, Political Correctness, and Civil Unrest
Thread: Racism, Policing, Political Correctness, and Civil Unrest This thread is 10 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT»
Stevie
Stevie


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 01, 2018 01:03 AM

The alternative is to let people publicly declare how justifiable it is for someone to die in a terrorist attack as long as it meets their agenda. That to me sounds insane. I cannot fathom what goes through your mind when you make the argument that people should be protected under the banner of freedom of speech to support religious zealots that preach indiscriminate destruction and death, and I'm not sure if I want to find out either. Terrorism is a plague that should not be supported or condoned under any circumstance and I find it right that those who do should face trial and be found guilty accordingly.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
SCOURGE OF THE H-SEA
posted April 01, 2018 01:29 AM

facing time for what you say, no matter how insensitive it is, is some nazi snow. anyone supporting such a thing, supports nazism.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted April 01, 2018 02:41 AM

Stevie said:
I cannot fathom what goes through your mind when you make the argument that people should be protected under the banner of freedom of speech to support religious zealots that preach indiscriminate destruction and death, and I'm not sure if I want to find out either.


This is a grotesque makeup. Where did I say I support such thing, quote me please? I specified I agree on limits of free speech, which should end when violence is called. But, on this particular matter, there is not a clear consensus, in my opinion this is not what this vegan did, or maybe now you think that you + JJ became the  indisputable opinion?

Stevie said:
Terrorism is a plague that should not be supported or condoned under any circumstance and I find it right that those who do should face trial and be found guilty accordingly.


wow, such platitudes. Thats the kind of statement which allows a state as Israel to proceed to a thorough genocide over the years. What one calls terrorism, millions of others call it justice and vice-versa. Everything should be allowed under the debate sanctuary, in order to pursue and find the ultimate truth. Also, there is only one way to stop terrorism, which is to stop importing thousands of terrorists under all kind of preposterous pretexts. Terrorizing wankers on social medias is only a cover to shift from the state's unforgivable failures.

____________
Era II mods and utilities

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
SCOURGE OF THE H-SEA
posted April 01, 2018 02:54 AM

i concur with sal. jolly good show, old boy. *adjusts monocle and gives off a vibe of mild-mannered englishness*

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
verriker
verriker


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Erwin Data Modeler
posted April 01, 2018 02:55 AM

for sure it is incorrect to imprison anybody for what they have to say save extreme hate speech with intent to kill, harm or bully, the point of such common sense law being to protect people from serious risk lol

on no planet does some random loony cheese woman who posted an exaggerated trash talk which she quickly deleted constitute a danger to anybody, one must get real with a sense of perspective, in my society if such a silly pushover would be flung into prison for a mere retarded comment then so would every red-faced punter down the English pub and then the prison would become a clown show lol

indeed, there is even a particular poster in this very thread who would have been arrested and put into prison some years ago under that law cheers lol
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
SCOURGE OF THE H-SEA
posted April 01, 2018 03:32 AM
Edited by fred79 at 03:32, 01 Apr 2018.

i do say, dear boy, that you are correct in your assumptions. and i wouldn't be hesitant to add, that most of us would be under that same nazi scrutiny and thrown in the brig with the other pirates of the net. cheers, verry-lad.

*adjusts eye patch*

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
verriker
verriker


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Erwin Data Modeler
posted April 01, 2018 04:10 AM

fred79 said:
i do say, dear boy, that you are correct in your assumptions. and i wouldn't be hesitant to add, that most of us would be under that same nazi scrutiny and thrown in the brig with the other pirates of the net. cheers, verry-lad.

*adjusts eye patch*


absolutely mate, let he who has never posted an online death threat in a reckless fit of pique, stupidity, nerd rage or whatelse cast the first stone (most of us probably have not but that is not here nor there) cheers lol
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
SCOURGE OF THE H-SEA
posted April 01, 2018 04:13 AM

don't you try to skirt your way out of this, verilicious. you're the first one who's gonna be holding my pocket in the slammer.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted April 01, 2018 08:42 AM
Edited by Zenofex at 08:45, 01 Apr 2018.

Quote:
For one thing it's not circumstantial. There is no need to even mention the terror attack when you want to communicate that butchers are not your favorite kind of people. Or else she COULD have said, EVEN THOUGH she generally thinks that butchers are a very low life form, not even THEM would deserve to die in a random terror attack.
The terror attacks were the topic at hand so she used that and focused on a single victim which was not to her liking - not on the rest of the victims (quite a few), not on the torrorists or their motivation, not on the act itself. Who "deserves" to die in a terror attack, plane crash, gas explosion, war, etc. is completely beside the point, people rate other people all the time and consider some more worthy of living or dying that others, no matter the circumstances.
Quote:
Second, yes, of course we have the right to outlaw it. If you POST something, it's like printing a newspaper or a leaflet.
And that leaflet says in this case: "I have no sympathy for murdered butchers", not "I think terrorsts are hot".
Quote:
Lastly, it's about outlawing terror and terrorists, and the law makes it clear that you cannot go ahead and - how indirectly as it may be - that there is something good about terror. If you'd say, for example, that it's a good think the WTC got flattened because it was so ugly, it would be the same thing. AGAIN, you COULD opine that, but would have to phrase it differently. While you think, that the WTC was ugly like hell, it shouldn't have been served as a mass grave.
Such a "sacred cow" approach is what kills critical thinking and eventually introduces dogmas and repression based on them. If I for example advocate that terror attacks wake the society up for issues which the vast majority of people have been neglecting or not even knowing about, make them think outside of their everiday box and srart looking at things more globally which eventually leads to greater awareness and more prudent decisions, I'd be called "terrorism apologist" following your line of thinking. Yet read a random historical analysis for something which has happened in a "morally safe" distance in the past and its repercussions and you'll come across dozens of such conclusions.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 01, 2018 08:56 AM

Exactly, I remember for instance, reading a post by JJ, explaining how 9/11 was art. He was referring to the symbolism of the picked targets and the synced execution etc. It is not far fetched that had he written that in France, he could have been charged with "terrorist apology" also. When you ignore the motive, calling a terrorist attack "art" sounds pretty supportive, too, doesn't it.
____________
I admit it, I like it when they are bombastic - Neraus

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
SCOURGE OF THE H-SEA
posted April 01, 2018 09:17 AM

Exactly. Terror doesn't come from anywhere for no reason. There is ALWAYS a reason. Take the wtc, for example. It was hit because of the world's rabid desire for oil, is my guess. That attack was meant to send a message: "stay the snow out of our lands and stop using us like cannon fodder and stealing from us". The mostly "civilized" world had been guilty of snowing with oil-rich countries, and some people decided enough was enough. That, or there was a falling-out between the bush family and the bin laden family(according to some, anyway), and the previous was used as an excuse. I don't know for a fact the reason WHY it happened, but i DO know that our leaders lied to us as a nation, and had convinced most of us to invade an innocent country. And for what? Oil. So my first guess is most likely the correct one. Why ELSE invade a country that had nothing to do with the attack, but have access to plenty of oil? And having that same administration continually lie about everything involving the invasion? It stinks to high heaven. Anyone with a brain could see that our leaders had either snowed with somebody for too long, or had used an attack that killed thousands to carry out some corrupt snow. Either way, everything points to what the public ISN'T told about, by those in power. I'm not going to attack someone out of the blue, for no reason. There would have to be a reason WHY. And there always is; especially when you're dealing with nations, power, and greed. Throughout history, the poor don't attack the rich and powerful without a REASON. There has to be something that pushed them to put themselves at great risk. And i'm just not buying that it's simply because of a BOOK.

Now, what would you call ME? Someone with a brain, or an apologist? Would you lock me up simply for having an opinion, even though i'm not in the least bit involved in anything dangerous, and am entirely ANTI-propaganda?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 01, 2018 10:10 AM

Ok, let me make some things clear.

Obviously, the point of the law in France is not to put people in jail; the point is to put people to COURT and give them a sound warning. (they all got probation so far.) The purpose of this is pretty obvious, and I wrote a lot about explaining how the law works. As the burqa-ban, it would seem to restrict individual rights, but the law is neither static nor absolute, because society changes, and with change come changes in law as well.

The internet has been a major player when it comes to change, and there are those who'd say that ANY restriction put on internt-posting is a restriction of freedom of speech. HOWEVER, as with weapon development and the idea to allow everyone bearing a weapon, the idea of absolute freedom of speech has been developed in a time where you'd have to take this literally.Freedom of speech, today, isn't existing - for example, I cannot write everything I want here; some things would be deleted, and I might even get punished.

Still - everyone accepts that.

Creativity is NEVER based on absolute freedom - that doesn't need it anymore. It's restrictions that bring creativity.

For my taste, nowadays far too many people drivel far too much bullcrap in social media. It's become something like a constant white noise, that gets more meaningless on one hand and more annoying on another, whendesinformation and nonsense is spread "crapstorms" rage and people generally show an amazing talent to be thick as bricks.

Would I've found guilty in France comparing terror with art? That question, verriker, is pretty much not interesting, because laws cannot outlaw something in retrospect. With the law in place, if in France, I'd have found another way to put this. It is, after all, not forbidden to talk about terror or terrorism. There is terror and there is terror. The IRA's way, for example, has been to target more or less military personnel only - which actually isn't "terror", if you think about it, but war. Terror attacks have been part of the last wars as well; bombs on cities ARE terror.
Now, the actual difference, if you think about it, is, in a war there are opponents, and this is what we don't actually have with terror and terrorism of the 21st century. There are no enemies. People die, all around the world, for no specific reason, without any specific goal. It's not making even a modicum of sense - other than 9/11, mind you, which has been a clear and direct attack on the US by an organization founded for the purpose of vengeance. You could call that war - a dirty war, sure, but wars are never declared in mutual consensus.

Terror now? It's more like white noise, isn't it? And there you go. Is there really a difference between a guy ploughing into a mass of people and a school shooting?


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 01, 2018 10:59 AM

1- Nobody says freedom of speech is absolute, we just say her statement is not a violation because the motive is not terrorism apology.
2- If you think there is too much noise on the internet, spend less time in front of such noise, that is not a justification for banning things.

Oh, and I'm not verriker, btw.

____________
I admit it, I like it when they are bombastic - Neraus

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 01, 2018 08:57 PM

Obviously the court saw it different - I don't see any reason to debate that specific decision. We can debate the law, but but the specific decison, well.

The internet noise isn*t MY problem, but I think that it is a problem for a lot of people who are "ddicted" to the internet in a different way.

Just think about the natural impulse nowadays - you want to know about something, you google it.
Sure - but how trustworthy is the info you grab there? And how much effort should society - aka, the state - into making sure, the info on the web is CORRECT? And does that mean you should close down websites which provide false info? And what info IS actually false and what is not?

So there are lots of problems, and one of the problems in a time when everyone can make remselves heard is knowing the difference between factual truth, subjective opinion, and factual lie.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 01, 2018 09:34 PM

Well, there is a lot of misinformation on-line for sure, but on which basis are you going to shut that down, lying? No, the solution to that is to improve your own intellectual filtering mechanisms by doing good old-fashioned reading, comparing sources, checking out the scientific credibility of them etc. It's usually not so hard to distinguish crap from real info when you are properly educated or you educate your own filtering mechanisms with the correct methodology.
____________
I admit it, I like it when they are bombastic - Neraus

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 01, 2018 10:03 PM

Artu, *I* have no problem with this. But the next generation? And the next?

Times are a-changing - and faster than ever; and always faster at that. Acceleration is massive.

However, I don't see what this discussion is good for? Sure, everyone has an opinion nowadays, but truth ISN'T like democracy - or is it? Is there even a truth?
What I mean is, people who have no idea about the law discuss SERIOUSLY, whether someone should or shouldn't have been put to court under a specoific law (that at least I don't know exactly) or found guilty.

I mean, that's ridiculous. We may discuss whether a law like that is right or not, which is behind this - but then, what is right? See above.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 01, 2018 10:14 PM

Well, it's not one of the most technical law cases ever, it's pretty easy to agree or disagree.
____________
I admit it, I like it when they are bombastic - Neraus

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 02, 2018 10:00 AM

What information do we have, though? What has been said at court? There is always a judge's reasoning for a verdict - what was that, exactly? What did the prosecution actually say - which would be THEIR arguments and interesting to hear...

No, I don't find it easy, and I have to say that everyone giving their opinion on stuff based on a minimum of information (there is no time to really delve into it, and no one is interested either) is a really disturbing aspect of the internet society.

On that level I agree with the decision. You disagree. Fine, but who cares whether we agree or disagree, and on what is our opinion based?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 02, 2018 10:55 AM

That line of thinking is too vague for me, you can say that about almost anything.
____________
I admit it, I like it when they are bombastic - Neraus

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 02, 2018 11:38 AM

You mean, my opinion that I don't like decision-making in a thumbs-up/down Roman Colosseum way is "too vague" a line of thinking for you? Don't you think the information we base our opinion on is "vague" in many cases)? Especially when it comes to people being guilty or not guilty of breaching any law?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 10 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0861 seconds