This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Bias against Trump
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Stirlingsays  16 Dec 17 6.07am |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by wordup
This is more of a pincher movement that people have walked into really, ushered in by both the left and right just to maintain control. There is no truly significant threat to our way of life, whether from 'the war on drugs' , or 'the war on terror' unless we let there be, no matter how much people panic themselves. Buying in to these ideas wholesale just does their work for them and allows politicians to use these fears to bring in laws that will impact your life far more than any nutter ever will. It was ideas and attitudes of the right that ushered in a miriad of terror laws, and helped to erode civil liberties. Of course many were fine with that because they basically saw it as something that would only hinder the lives of muslims, and didn't appreciate that anything brought in to target one group will inevitable end of being applied to everyone else. And so whether from the right and online censorship is brought in or 'protect our children', or encryption is obliterated to 'stop terror' or on the left when people are getting hauled in for something racist on twitter, it's all part of the same thing, and helps no-one and protects no-one because all of these things are inevitably used against the people more than any genuine threat. People on the left cheer half of these restrictions, people on the right cheer the other half, and they all merrily march off a cliff together. Edited by wordup (15 Dec 2017 5.37pm) Don't we need those 'terror' laws? Haven't restrictions on plane luggage saved lives? I totally agree on the importance of protecting civil liberties but not at the expense of blown apart limbs on pavements. I'm happy to discuss which laws you think have gone too far....maybe I'll agree on some. But I think censoring of 'offence' and this 'hate speech' movement by corporations and governments on social media is insidious.....I know of this great free facility that exists on social media....it's called....block....or 'not follow or respond'.....that's all the censorship we ever needed....also if someone's actually making threats, the law was always rightly there in the first place. Just in case you didn't see, I responded to your other post on the last page....excellent thought provoking posts by the way.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| wordup 16 Dec 17 7.10am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Don't we need those 'terror' laws? Haven't restrictions on plane luggage saved lives? I totally agree on the importance of protecting civil liberties but not at the expense of blown apart limbs on pavements. I'm happy to discuss which laws you think have gone too far....maybe I'll agree on some. But I think censoring of 'offence' and this 'hate speech' movement by corporations and governments on social media is insidious.....I know of this great free facility that exists on social media....it's called....block....or 'not follow or respond'.....that's all the censorship we ever needed....also if someone's actually making threats, the law was always rightly there in the first place. Just in case you didn't see, I responded to your other post on the last page....excellent thought provoking posts by the way.
I agree, I'm certainly not saying that we don't need any terror laws and in some cases they clearly do save lives. What I am saying is that many laws inevitably end up being used or expanded and abused in ways that impact the average person or simply someone with a view, whether left and right [Link] or to track or spy on journalists or the like which has happened numerous times without any legitimate need. Most decisions made by government are to maintain control. We should be careful to factor that in when politicians bring in laws we intuitively feel we support, around issues that evoke a lot of emotion. Both sides do this and what we often end up with is restrictions on the average person. So people need to scrutinise and consider, as governments only ever seem to take away, not give back, so whether it's hate laws or attacks on online freedoms or creeping censorship or one form or another, once it's gone it's gone.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 16 Dec 17 7.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by wordup
I agree, I'm certainly not saying that we don't need any terror laws and in some cases they clearly do save lives. What I am saying is that many laws inevitably end up being used or expanded and abused in ways that impact the average person or simply someone with a view, whether left and right [Link] or to track or spy on journalists or the like which has happened numerous times without any legitimate need. Most decisions made by government are to maintain control. We should be careful to factor that in when politicians bring in laws we intuitively feel we support, around issues that evoke a lot of emotion. Both sides do this and what we often end up with is restrictions on the average person. So people need to scrutinise and consider, as governments only ever seem to take away, not give back, so whether it's hate laws or attacks on online freedoms or creeping censorship or one form or another, once it's gone it's gone. Yep, you're right. We see the inevitability of mission creep is almost all areas of political and social infrastructures....by it from the international to the national and local. The balance between the collective and the individual is constantly shifting and most of population only notice when it affects them....understandable of course as that is our nature. You would hope that only the best and the brightest were involved in politics but of course it's about popularity with meritocracy being a side factor rather than the driving force......which is why we can get leaders who are far less able than some of their less motivated subordinates.....why we get Corbyn instead of Benn or Trump instead of Rubio.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| wordup 16 Dec 17 7.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
No it really is about free speech. I'm honest when I say that I believe in the marketplace of ideas......Good ideas will survive over time in a free society and bad ideas won't. It is extremely important that the free aspect is continued with so that no current philosophy that is in charge can stop itself from being over taken. Like I said, this freedom is how progressivism rose and I believe how it will fall...or at least its more ardent ideas.....but legally punishing and censoring anyone attacking those ideas or its tenets is not a free society. So while I question why this model was hired in the first place with those views I wasn't one of those who supported her getting the sack nor called for it. Same for this 'white privilege' guy. Tell people to be professional and do the job they are hired to do....don't sack them and wimp out to the activists who bully on social media.....left or right. We are talking about people's rent and mortgages and families....people deserve chances. Debate don't sack people outside of encouraging or pushing violence....it creates a dishonest and cowed society. Complain....argue....but when it comes to attacking people's livelihoods I think that is a darkness too far.....It's an escalation that takes debate away from where it should be....a discussion and meeting point for opposing ideas into an arena of polarised distruct and hatred. I get Jamie's point about employer contracts.....I see how companies aren't fans of controversy.....but I think it's wrong and unfortunate to punish companies for the words of employees....It would just be better if this didn't happen....but I know that this sentiment is unrealistic in these polarized activist heavy times. I don't agree with people getting fired over twitter comments or statements they have made in their own time. As for Milo...the twitter situation was ridiculous but having to resign over those comments on pederasty....I suppose there has to be a line somewhere and it's reasonable in society to discuss where that line should be.....I think that line is far too short at the moment but Milo deserved pushback for those words...even if his opponents were highly unfair in how they used them. Milo is both wonderful and infuriating. He shows me why the American first amendment is better....but as for his personal views...I agree on some and not so much on others..like on God or net neutrality....But he's a funny guy....and by feck we need funny guys in these poe faced times.....and he hates progressive ideas so I'm obviously going to be on his side there. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Dec 2017 6.01am) Yes all of this makes a lot of sense. I don't feel that anyone should be sacked unless their job takes a total back seat to their views. The idea of someones careers can be ended there and then for stating their opinion isn't healthy, unless as you say they are actively advocating violence or something of that nature. I do feel that if people saw this issue as more of an attack on freedoms in general that can happen from both sides of the isle and always has rather than 'the right' or 'progressives' it would better protect everyones rights. If people become an advocate for one side of the issue, they inadvertently offer a free pass to the exact same thing happening in the opposite direction. That just results in everyones freedoms being attacked. In addition to the examples I gave, just today in fact the Trump administration banned Centers for Disease Control from using the terms “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender”, “fetus” "evidence-based” and “science-based” [Link] These are now forbidden words on official documents. I mean this stuff is an attempt to diminish people and even science and really no different or less political than anything from the left like certain words being off limits as 'hate speech'. One group may well cheer the former action and one the latter, but no-one wins as they just meld together to restrict the population as a whole and put all of the power in the hands of those in government.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 16 Dec 17 7.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by wordup
Yes all of this makes a lot of sense. I don't feel that anyone should be sacked unless their job takes a total back seat to their views. The idea of someones careers can be ended there and then for stating their opinion isn't healthy, unless as you say they are actively advocating violence or something of that nature. I do feel that if people saw this issue as more of an attack on freedoms in general that can happen from both sides of the isle and always has rather than 'the right' or 'progressives' it would better protect everyones rights. If people become an advocate for one side of the issue, they inadvertently offer a free pass to the exact same thing happening in the opposite direction. That just results in everyones freedoms being attacked. In addition to the examples I gave, just today in fact the Trump administration banned Centers for Disease Control from using the terms “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender”, “fetus” "evidence-based” and “science-based” [Link] These are now forbidden words on official documents. I mean this stuff is an attempt to diminish people and even science and really no different or less political than anything from the left like certain words being off limits as 'hate speech'. One group may well cheer the former action and one the latter, but no-one wins as they just meld together to restrict the population as a whole and put all of the power in the hands of those in government. I think we all know that within modern day republicanism an opposition to certain uses of science exists......Just as the creationists inevitably come from their side. It's all anti secular and anti liberal and needs to be continually debated by the rational amongst us. Banning words is ridiculous. How does that help anything? Some republican presidents have ignored that wing in the past....Trump, I think is feeding them to ensure his base. Not good. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Dec 2017 7.53am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| wordup 16 Dec 17 7.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Yep, you're right. We see the inevitability of mission creep is almost all areas of political and social infrastructures....by it from the international to the national and local. The balance between the collective and the individual is constantly shifting and most of population only notice when it affects them....understandable of course as that is our nature. You would hope that only the best and the brightest were involved in politics but of course it's about popularity with meritocracy being a side factor rather than the driving force......which is why we can get leaders who are far less able than some of their less motivated subordinates.....why we get Corbyn instead of Benn or Trump instead of Rubio. That's a very good point. I feel that politics has always attracted a certain kind of self interested person, big egos, but as you say intelligence used to factor in much more than personality. There also used to be a kind of understanding and contract that to gain respect you had to at least attempt to lift people up or offer something other than rhetoric. Now though, politicians more often are essentially an instrument of location independent corporations, who fund their campaigns and shape laws while the average joe just watches from the sidelines. Corporations can run rings around countries because their influence can more readily transcend borders unless all countries work in unison, which never happens. There will always be tax havens and the like. Even with something like Brexit, regardless of the side of the issue people were on, it wasn't really a genuine desire to offer people that choice, it was a calculated gamble by an arrogant leader who thought it was a cheap way of getting reelected.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Penge Eagle Beckenham 20 Dec 17 11.09am |
|
|---|---|
|
Great day for Americans with the tax reform getting passed. To my US friends, see how much money you save with the calculator: [Link]
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| wordup 20 Dec 17 3.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
Great day for Americans with the tax reform getting passed. To my US friends, see how much money you save with the calculator: [Link] Yes, a real cash bonanza for the poor. Not at all about easing even more $$$$$ into the hands of rich party donors. Let's call this what the actual bill is. A very short term minor cut for many, and a huge one for the few and corporations . Perks for the donor class and perks for sitting representatives. The bill even heavily reward companies for offshoring their workforces. How patriotic. Enjoy the scraps. Of course like all political parties, they also not thinking about how this will actually be paid for down the road.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Penge Eagle Beckenham 20 Dec 17 8.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by wordup
Yes, a real cash bonanza for the poor. Not at all about easing even more $$$$$ into the hands of rich party donors. Let's call this what the actual bill is. A very short term minor cut for many, and a huge one for the few and corporations . Perks for the donor class and perks for sitting representatives. The bill even heavily reward companies for offshoring their workforces. How patriotic. Enjoy the scraps. Of course like all political parties, they also not thinking about how this will actually be paid for down the road.
Tax cut for corporations from 35% to 21% is a good thing, unless you're a commie...
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 20 Dec 17 8.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
Tax cut for corporations from 35% to 21% is a good thing, unless you're a commie... Or poor.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
leifandersonshair  Newport 20 Dec 17 9.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
Tax cut for corporations from 35% to 21% is a good thing, unless you're a commie... I'm assuming you are using the American definition of 'commie', i.e. anyone to the left of ultra right wing economic 'hard capitalist' policies
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| .TUX. 20 Dec 17 9.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
Tax cut for corporations from 35% to 21% is a good thing, unless you're a commie... .........because money 'trickles down' doesn't it? Only in dreamland ffs
Buy Litecoin. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.