|
U-Know! Forum » Youse barred! |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
sanshee 1080 posts |
Edited May 06, 2009, 11:08
May 06, 2009, 11:03
|
||
|
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6225382.ece I haven't got a scooby who this guy is, but heard him earlier and on first impressions he seemed too humourless and therefore not that clever to say anything really that 'controversial' or worth dropping your jaw at really. That he was the very opposite made Jerry Sadowitz a bit of a flawed genius. But on a wider scale, should we ban 'words'? x
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Edited May 06, 2009, 23:16
May 06, 2009, 23:14
|
||
|
I find myself struggling with free speech ideals sometimes. Savage, Limbaugh, and Coulter are all examples of talking heads that, personally, I wouldn't shed a tear for if they all went down in a small plane together. I'd probably do a dance, actually. They are prime examples of the double-edged nature of freedom. True freedom permits all voices to be aired. And some of those voices are shrill, hateful, and stupid. I was having a discussion about welfare recently with someone who insisted that there were too many welfare mothers in our city. I argued that since most people would rather avoid the indignities of being on SS, that the problem was mostly self-regulating. Allowing idiots to blow their horn is also a sort of self regulating tactic... give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves is a pretty sensible way to go. The only problem is when you get areas that are truly dominated by a narrow ideology. When all media and culture is seized by hardliners, and there's no counteractive to it, you get intellectual wastelands like the American midwest, or those areas that have been held by the Taliban long enough. Put a population under the double whammy of internal persecution and xenophobia and you seriously upend the whole formula.
|
|||
PMM 3155 posts |
May 06, 2009, 23:40
|
||
|
There was a person talking about this on the radio this morning from an organisation called Article 19 http://www.article19.org/ Her main concerns were that such lists lack transparency and can be arbitary. Personally, I think Weiner's name has become much better known as a result of his inclusion. As a method of limiting his ability to spread his message, this probably isn't the best way.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
May 07, 2009, 00:38
|
||
|
PMM wrote: There was a person talking about this on the radio this morning from an organisation called Article 19 http://www.article19.org/ Her main concerns were that such lists lack transparency and can be arbitary. Personally, I think Weiner's name has become much better known as a result of his inclusion. As a method of limiting his ability to spread his message, this probably isn't the best way. Good point... the unintentional publicity just serves the egocentric aims of these spit-spraying soapbox ranters... they love being derided in the popular press. It plays right into their whole cult shtick.
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
May 07, 2009, 02:23
|
||
The only thing that Savage Weiner is gonna do is insult England periodically on his stupid talk show...
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
May 07, 2009, 03:08
|
||
If a right wing blowhard is against you, you're probably in good company.
|
|||
|
sanshee 1080 posts |
May 07, 2009, 11:30
|
||
|
Yup, pretty much agree with the dangers of that sort of thing. I'm sure Hitler started off with a soapbox down his local park. However, recently there were attempts made to bar this guy http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/may/05/assisted-suicide-nitschke-bournemouth I've heard him speak, and he seems level headed about it all. Perhaps opportunist, but it does raise some good questions. I think there are cirumstances in which we have to discuss the sides of our f-up-ness we'd rather go on pretending don't exist. I've always though there should be advice leaflets on how to 'dump' your baby or child in a safe way, replete with the strong message that if you do so there is nothing for you to be ashamed about, and that in fact, you're doing the right thing if that's how you feel. All the emphasis on always 'helping' young mums to stay with their children and basically making them feel more ashamed does, as we hear to out horror, often go tragically wrong. Now as for spreading hatred...nothing to back this up, but I do think that the argument has some parallel with 'computer games/horror films make peole go on killing sprees'. Most of us accept that to do so means you have those tendencies anyway, and that the violent images merely accomodate this. A bit like a child abuser getting off on standing outside a playground...do we ban playgrounds? Of course where enclaves exist and there is no real contact with the outer world then I can see how attitudes cam form and be stuck. The threat of voilence/persecution ontop that and yes, disaster strikes. But this eejit, I'd leave him to it. His platfrom is the media, and we do still have alot of intelligent thought out there and it will always win. Of course Abu Hamza was another matter. He was linked to a network where words were designed to gear up actions and he had real involvement there so yes, good riddance. x
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
May 08, 2009, 12:58
|
||
|
I find free speech the toughest issue of all. I defy anyone to have a hard and fast position that can be justified. On the one hand, I feel that we have to trust people, that we aren't so daft as to be convinced by wingnuts and that, as you say, give em enough rope. If your arguments are so great then reasonable people will be convinced you're right and the wingnut's wrong. Also, many ideas we cherish today were once heretical and would've been gagged in the name of protecting people from 'extreme views'. Then again, we have laws and taboos about using insulting, aggressive and threatening words against people for good reason. People have a right to freedom from persecution. Where does an extreme political or ideological view become threats and intimidation? In the UK, the Protection from Harassment Act, a law designed to defend women from stalker ex-boyfriends and whatnot, has been used over and over again to get injunctions to defend poor vulnerable multinational corporations from peaceful protesters. Any power we hand away will be used against us. The only other issue where I agree strongly with two completely opposing views is the use of political violence. It's a related thing, in that we have to maintain freedoms, yet to be absolute about it gives free rein to those who would abuse that freedom to bully and intimidate. There are anti-fascists who, rather than try to debate with boneheads who are out for blood, meet them on their own terms and clear the streets. This is intimidation and violence, yes. But so's what the fascists are doing if we leave them there. Whereas when anti-fascists have taken their racist newspapers and told them to fuck off, with fists and boots if it comes to it, people of all ethnicities are safe on the streets. It takes a strange and remote view to say that it would've been better to leave the fascists to escalate. "From pacifist to terrorist, each person condemns violence - and then adds one cherished case in which it may be justified." - Gloria Steinem Getting back to the case in hand, I agree Sanshee that with this shock-jock tosser, leave him to it. He's getting more airtime now than if we'd never banned him. sanshee wrote: we do still have alot of intelligent thought out there and it will always win. I'm not so sure it will. And even on the occasions when it does, it comes after a lot of damage. Hitler himself said the Nazis could never have come to power if the Communists had challenged them in the streets. Instead, they were always in meetings.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
May 08, 2009, 13:38
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: sanshee wrote: we do still have alot of intelligent thought out there and it will always win. I'm not so sure it will. And even on the occasions when it does, it comes after a lot of damage. Hitler himself said the Nazis could never have come to power if the Communists had challenged them in the streets. Instead, they were always in meetings. This is the reason I am conflicted about the west's decision to go after the Taliban. On the one hand, nobody, not even the most fervent leftist, could argue that the Taliban is a friend to their philosophy. A theo-fascist, ultrapatriarchal organization that uses brutality and terror to maintain control... like the Nazis, nobody should have to suffer their reign of medievalism. On the other hand, to defeat such a foe (fanatical, numerous, with a home advantage, and with no trepidation about becoming a martyr) means, usually, military tactics that are indiscriminately harsh. Lots of civilian death and hardship. The only possible way for the Taliban to be defeated without all-out war is for the more civilized powers in the Islamic world to quit sitting on the fence and deal with their own extremism. Unfortunately, they've been happy to sit back and let the west take on the Taliban. What these cowardly regimes fail to recognize is that the Taliban means to replace every governing body in the Islamic world with their own brand of power, no doubt precipitating even more hostile action from the west, leading to world-scale catastrophic violence. Can the Taliban make good their plainly stated threats? They've got Islamabad and Washington pretty nervous. Yes, the Taliban must be stopped. But it sure would be better if it was the more moderate (by comparison!) Muslim states that were taking care of business. By stepping aside and allowing the west to fight this fight, they are abdicating their regional responsibility. It may well be that they pay the price for not 'meeting them in the streets', as the Communists failed to counter the National Socialists in 30's Germany, because it's unclear if the west can prevail in Afghanistan any more readily than the Soviets, or any invading force thru history, for that matter. Pakistan and it's nukes are the big wild card in this whole thing. If it looks like the militants have a chance at kidnapping some thermonuclear bombs, the shit's really going to hit the fan.
|
|||
|
sanshee 1080 posts |
Edited May 08, 2009, 13:40
May 08, 2009, 13:39
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: sanshee wrote: we do still have alot of intelligent thought out there and it will always win. I'm not so sure it will. And even on the occasions when it does, it comes after a lot of damage. Hitler himself said the Nazis could never have come to power if the Communists had challenged them in the streets. Instead, they were always in meetings. Merrick, the FULL quote I wrote read *But this eejit, I'd leave him to it. His platfrom is the media, and we do still have alot of intelligent thought out there and it will always win.* Please, it does have a specific context!! I was quite plainly I thought referring to 'the media'. Particularly I'm reminded of Anne Coulter, who made such side splitting gaffes and spoke with such great authority about things she had no clue about that she came across as a total moron most the time, and deserves only to be laughed at. Something tells me this guy Savage is the same sort of thing. As it is I do refer to Hilter earlier, and recongise he probably started from small rumblings. x
|
| Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
