Free Speech

[said]

The first ban you mention was due to a letter sent to, and published in the Jewish Chronicle in which a young Hebrew man was asking for certain facts to be confirmed - he had explained that if he was not in possession of facts how could he be expected to defend them. His question was in line with a similar question raised by gentiles. There was no denial of the holocaust - it was a merely a request to clarify widely varying published facts. Quite reasonable, I would have thought. The second was a sardonic idiom of the English language which has a double entendre. If you are foolish enough to think that someone would advertise their intentions for all legal bodies to read and then carry out such a deed - then you belong with Napoleon in his padded cell. Or, you could just consider that the saying is just a figure of speech in which you mean that a person is not worth his presence in public. The third example is that which has raised many questions on social media from astute observation of subsequent events, which do not conform to the story published. Quite possibly a number of people have accepted the printed word - and not given much thought to the subsequent events.

I do not - have not and never will bully people on line or anywhere else! I may question people's double standards or hypocrisy - that is not bullying. I do not believe in ganging up on a victim in any form whatever. I prefer dealing with matters face to face and do so. If for whatever reason some people feel that they have the right to superiority on line - its OK! If some people feel they have the right to tell other people what they should or should not be doing because it does not support how they feel - its OK. But put it into practice and I will be on the doorstep.

Part of my work is as a research Chemist. Yes, I have had much involvement with young people. Yes, there are many vulnerable people around now - far more than there used to be. It is not the vulnerable people you should be concerned about, it is the values of society that made them turn out that way, and that is the very institution that you are claiming to defend.

I hope that clears up any queries you may have with regards to my personality - I am flattered that you have had so much concern about me but let that be the end of the matter now.

[sandGroundZero]

…It is not the vulnerable people you should be concerned about, it is the values of society that made them turn out that way, and that is the very institution that you are claiming to defend.

This dialogue (i.e. with Toodles McGinty) is fascinating. I'm a bit confused, though. What "values of society" and which "vulnerable people"? Whose champion are you, really?

[said]

This dialogue (i.e. with Toodles McGinty) is fascinating. I'm a bit confused, though. What "values of society" and which "vulnerable people"? Whose champion are you, really?

It is the values that some modern day people have placed on society in that Political Correctness must be adhered to at all times. This has resulted in many people not accepting the realities of life and their own responsibilities. People who cannot face these issues are vulnerable to all types of attack whether it is in debating, arguing or standing your own ground. I am most certainly no-ones champion I can assure you of that. I just do my own thing which it appears is in conflict with PC.

[sandGroundZero]

It is the values that some modern day people have placed on society in that Political Correctness must be adhered to at all times. This has resulted in many people not accepting the realities of life and their own responsibilities. People who cannot face these issues are vulnerable to all types of attack whether it is in debating, arguing or standing your own ground. I am most certainly no-ones champion I can assure you of that. I just do my own thing which it appears is in conflict with PC.

Political Correctness is a construct of elements of our society deploying PC like a weapon of suppression and wishing to use culture war with the political end of keeping groups in their allotted place. Its effect is to sow fear, suspicion and antagonism. The "realities of life" people refuse to face are submitting to suppression. My advice would be to think a little more carefully about that.

If you're thinking the "realities of life" are such that people should quietly accept abuse or discrimination, then that is a rather out-dated attitude.
Deference is passé.

[Toodles McGinty]

This dialogue (i.e. with Toodles McGinty) is fascinating. I'm a bit confused, though. What "values of society" and which "vulnerable people"? Whose champion are you, really?

I wouldn't use the word 'champion' in connection with him. Although to give credit where it is due, when he does attack a certain section of society (mainly women with opinions or the LGBT community), he will try to justify his bigotry. Rather than the usual suspects who just pop in to drop their poison but never engage in any dialogue other than 'I hate these people and that's that'.

This idea that anyone who doesn't agree with them are 'snowflakes', when they are the first to cry when they are called out, is bizarre.

There is a massive difference between free speech and bullying. The concept that if people aren't tough enough to take any crap that is thrown at them, they should just shut up and take it without complaint, is bullying.

There has been a lot of coverage regarding the unkindness of society this week. A lot of coverage about bullying, particularly on social media. The original post on this thread, regarding Harry Miller, celebrated the fact that a grown man bullied someone and got away with it. Jonathan Auburn, for the College of Policing, said that Mr Miller had “engaged in regular tweeting relating to transgender people”. One tweet said: “I was assigned mammal at birth, but my orientation is fish. Don’t mis-species me. F***ers.” I mean, why bother? Why get your knickers in such a twist over something that has no effect on his life at all? Unless, as I suspect with most people who obsess over such things, they are lurking at the rear of some closet of their own making.

As I mentioned earlier, it's just about being decent. Being kind. Not targeting someone to make them 'other'. Because that can lead down a very dark road.

[sandGroundZero]

…There has been a lot of coverage …about bullying, particularly on social media. …I mean, why bother? Why get your knickers in such a twist over something that has no effect on his life at all? Unless, as I suspect with most people who obsess over such things, they are lurking at the rear of some closet of their own making.
As I mentioned earlier, it's just about being decent. Being kind. Not targeting someone to make them 'other'. Because that can lead down a very dark road.

I recall an article in The Times by Matthew Parris. (I believe this might be the item). Whether it is or not, he made a case for being less quick to take offence at more-or-less casual abusive behaviour. Parris, himself, has been the recipient of abuse, he recounts.

Perhaps it is true that hyper-sensitivity to casual abuse is counter-productive. What would you say to that?

[Toodles McGinty]

I recall an article in The Times by Matthew Parris. (I believe this might be the item). Whether it is or not, he made a case for being less quick to take offence at more-or-less casual abusive behaviour. Parris, himself, has been the recipient of abuse, he recounts.

Perhaps it is true that hyper-sensitivity to casual abuse is counter-productive. What would you say to that?

I'd say common sense should be applied on both sides. Casual abuse is still abuse. Then again, if you put yourself out there for any reason, there are always going to be some sad cases that will take a pop. That is social media. That's life as well.

Of course there are some that are over-sensitive to any kind of criticism. Just as there are some who refuse point blank to see another person's point of view. Rationality and intelligence should apply to both in equal measure.

[seivad]

The first ban you mention was due to a letter sent to, and published in the Jewish Chronicle in which a young Hebrew man was asking for certain facts to be confirmed - he had explained that if he was not in possession of facts how could he be expected to defend them. His question was in line with a similar question raised by gentiles. There was no denial of the holocaust - it was a merely a request to clarify widely varying published facts. Quite reasonable, I would have thought.

Not this again! How can you fail to be aware that for as long as you continue to post this spurious defence, I will continue to refute it.

It began on the thread below with your comment regarding the number of Jews killed in camps:

https://www.qlocal.co.uk/southport/f...5034439-11.htm

Post 154:

The UK did not have a nuclear bomb in 1945 - that was bluff. The American s used an Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - but luckily only 1.7% of the content material actually detonated - the Americans killed 250,000 people, 8% of which were military, the rest were civilians. To put that in perspective - 300,000 Jewish people were said to have died in the German War camps.

My response:

Post 155:

Good grief, man... where on earth do you get your facts from? Even without fact checking, how can you possibly be unaware that millions of Jews lost their lives in the camps? Around 1,000,000 Jewish people were killed in the Auschwitz complex alone. Out of the est. 6,000,000 Jewish lives lost in the Holocaust, I believe about 3,000,000 were in the camps.

In response to my comment, you made this comment complete with information copied from the Institute for Historical Review, whose mandate is to promote Holocaust denial and promote Nazism. Not, as you stated, copied from a comment written by a Jewish reader on the Jewish Gazette’s website. (Note that the Jewish publication was then the Gazette,not the Chronicle)

You should also note that you stated that the numbers cited by the Institute for Historical Review were, in your opinion, “one of the most accurate based on the amount of research carried out” You weren’t “clarifying widely varying published facts”. You were promoting “facts” from an anti-Semitic organisation as being the most accurate numbers.


https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-h...torical-review

Post 154:

There have been numerous estimations on the actual numbers involved in the holocaust. The early published figures were so obviously inaccurate - but this is possibly one of the most accurate based on the amount of research carried out.

The Jewish "basic" population of about 2, 850, 000 couldn't possibly have suffered a loss of something like six million. The general magnitude was certainly half a million, but the actual number of Jews who died in the German concentration camps might well have been as low as 300,000 or as high as 600,000." Institute for Historical Review.

The Holocaust Encyclopedia gives the Jewish population of Germany in 1933 as according to the census of June 16, 1933, the Jewish population of Germany, including the Saar region (which at that time was still under the administration of the League of Nations), was approximately 505,000 people out of a total population of 67 million, or somewhat less than 0.75 percent.

Inaccuracies in reports are only those that reach the level of wishful criticism, i.e. that they do not exist.

There are numerous responses from other members expressing outrage at your holocaust denial. I won’t waste any more time or space by quoting them. This was my conclusion in response to your comment:

Post 178

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Jews were transported to the death camps from every German occupied country in Europe. Educate yourself.

.Your post tells me everything I need to know about you. I've always known you were a troll, making outrageous comments designed to attract attention to you. But this latest one is totally unacceptable. We have a forum policy on Qlocal, and you've crossed the line. A temporary ban should give you pause to consider future comments.

[sandGroundZero]

Not this again! How can you fail to be aware that for as long as you continue to post this spurious defence, I will continue to refute it.

I am grateful for your history refresher, seivad — an eye opener. I had no idea, being a comparative newcomer to Q Local forums.

[said]

Political Correctness is a construct of elements of our society deploying PC like a weapon of suppression and wishing to use culture war with the political end of keeping groups in their allotted place. Its effect is to sow fear, suspicion and antagonism. The "realities of life" people refuse to face are submitting to suppression. My advice would be to think a little more carefully about that.

If you're thinking the "realities of life" are such that people should quietly accept abuse or discrimination, then that is a rather out-dated attitude.
Deference is passé.

I take 'realities of life' people to be those who do not support PC and I would refer to it as civil disobedience. To follow PC standards is to be under the control of society to which I disagree with. If someone uses verbal abuse - it can be ignored or responded to in like. It causes no harm and portrays the poor character of the abuser - unless used in jest. On the other hand, on the rare occasion where violence is intended - it would be necessary to weigh up the cause of the animosity, drink. drugs or otherwise and act accordingly. There are an increasing number of people who are now making a stand realising that to do nothing, or to ignore events - results in such events continuing.

[said]

Irony!

"There are numerous responses from other members expressing outrage at your holocaust denial."

So why do you repeat them?

[seivad]

Irony!

"There are numerous responses from other members expressing outrage at your holocaust denial."

So why do you repeat them?

I mentioned the responses from other members, which is not the same as repeating them, or, as is more usual on the forum, quoting them.

The only comments quoted belong to you and I. How else would you suggest that justification for your ban on the basis of holocaust denial is illustrated? If you stopped offering lame denials/excuses, there would be no need to illustrate what you actually said, or member's reaction to your comments.

[sandGroundZero]

…To follow PC standards is to be under the control of society to which I disagree with.

PC is a convenient shorthand term for a tactic of ridiculing people who object to the use of language intended to demean individuals and groups. The use of the term PC is itself ostentatious, divisive posturing — vice signalling, if you like (or even if you don't).

The values you appear to advocate are suspicion, ill-feeling and division.

The Miller v The College of Policing judgment as another post in this thread has observed, appears on a bit of legalese to vindicate a man, Miller, taking online, gratuitous swipes at trans activists. I can comprehend why some women's groups object to self-declared trans women (often with penises intact) demanding the right to use women-only spaces. Why on earth Harry Miller weighed-in is a mystery; fear and loathing perhaps describe his motivations better — PC hardly applies!

[sandGroundZero]

…Of course there are some that are over-sensitive to any kind of criticism. Just as there are some who refuse point blank to see another person's point of view. Rationality and intelligence should apply to both in equal measure.

Regrettably, rationality and intelligence are not nearly as prominent in human nature as Enlightenment philosophers would have wished.

[Toodles McGinty]

PC is a convenient shorthand term for a tactic of ridiculing people who object to the use of language intended to demean individuals and groups. The use of the term PC is itself ostentatious, divisive posturing — vice signalling, if you like (or even if you don't).

The values you appear to advocate are suspicion, ill-feeling and division.

The Miller v The College of Policing judgment as another post in this thread has observed, appears on a bit of legalese to vindicate a man, Miller, taking online, gratuitous swipes at trans activists. I can comprehend why some women's groups object to self-declared trans women (often with penises intact) demanding the right to use women-only spaces. Why on earth Harry Miller weighed-in is a mystery; fear and loathing perhaps describe his motivations better — PC hardly applies!

From what I've read, Miller wasn't vindicated. Not for the comments, at least. It was the heavy handedness of the police that was called into question. All that was said about Miller was that he wasn't about to commit a crime.

I'm afraid that the subject of transgender people is not one I'm that familiar with. I don't know many, and those I do know, I don't know well. On women only safe spaces, I'd say that if someone has a penis, it isn't a 'safe' space. Not as it was intended, anyway. Any more than a penis in a women's changing room. That is in no way a slight, or dismissive of someone who hasn't fully transitioned. Nor on penises! Nor do I think that the vast majority of people with penises are any threat to women at all. Whichever way they identify.

As far as the likes of Miller is concerned, I think fear has a lot to do with it. As with the anti-LGBT lot on here, they either fear they will be attracted to that they purport to hate, are attracted to, or will be mocked for so much as being in the same post code. Or they aren't terribly secure in their own masculinity. Fear is usually the root of hatred.

Shame really. It must be awful to be so insecure in one's sexuality that they either jump like a scalded cat, or go on an all out (verbal) assault.