"The World's Constitution" - your review?

[Scott Steiner]

40 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

6 hours ago, welshbairn said:

I won't in an absolute sense, there's the old chestnut of shouting fire in a crowd so people get trampled trying to escape. Eddie Izzard had a good line on the telly tonight about fascists, they invent a lie, shout it loudly, and then start the killing. If I was a publisher I wouldn't allow step one. 

That still doesn't break freedom of speech - freedom of speech still means you have to deal with the consequences - it's why Lennon-Yaxley is constantly in trouble with the law.

The authorities target him because his message resonates with ordinary people, which is a serious threat to the established order.

[coprolite]

8 hours ago, TheNavigateur said:

What is your best-approach, on deciding what views should be heard?

A question that large and nebulous can't have a single short answer. An attempt at a satisfactory answer would probably run to tens of thousands of words. 

Your question pre-supposes that there can be an approach to deciding "what views are heard". It also implies that there should be  a policy of that type. 

Neither of these things are immediately and universally obviously true. 

Assuming that it is possible and desirable to have such a policy, what do you mean by each of "views", "decide" and "heard"?

 

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, Scott Steiner said:

The authorities target him because his message resonates with ordinary people, which is a serious threat to the established order.

The authorities don't "target" him. 

His message resonates with a handful of moronic throwbacks, not "ordinary people" 

He isn't any threat to any established order. 

Apart from that you're absolutely spot on. 

[Scott Steiner]

12 minutes ago, coprolite said:

The authorities don't "target" him. 

His message resonates with a handful of moronic throwbacks, not "ordinary people" 

He isn't any threat to any established order. 

Apart from that you're absolutely spot on. 

I'm afraid you're incorrect on all those points.

[coprolite]

45 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

I'm afraid you're incorrect on all those points.

A judge said

“Mr Lennon’s complaint was that he had done nothing wrong and that he didn’t need to be moved on, that he was being singled out and moved on because of who he is.

“That is not in my judgement is the case. Mr Lennon is not as well known as he or his supporters might think."

 

Not at all surprised at you outing yourself as a credulous EDL fanboy. 

[Scott Steiner]

5 minutes ago, coprolite said:

A judge said

“Mr Lennon’s complaint was that he had done nothing wrong and that he didn’t need to be moved on, that he was being singled out and moved on because of who he is.

“That is not in my judgement is the case. Mr Lennon is not as well known as he or his supporters might think."

 

Not at all surprised at you outing yourself as a credulous EDL fanboy. 

That quote doesn't contradict what I said.

Unsurprised to see you play the man rather than the ball though.  It's a common tactic for those who have run out of ideas.

[Antlion]

And, to no one’s surprise, the latest alias follows the well-worn path of gradually, ever so gradually, pushing the racism via defending racists.  

[DublinMagyar]

T'was ever thus

[D Angelo Barksdale]

*Yaxley Lennon repeatedly breaks the law

You: Is there no end to the repeated persecution of this man ?

[Scott Steiner]

5 minutes ago, Kima Greggs said:

*Yaxley Lennon repeatedly breaks the law

You: Is there no end to the repeated persecution of this man ?

An interesting take, but unfortunately an incorrect one.

[coprolite]

29 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

That quote doesn't contradict what I said.

Unsurprised to see you play the man rather than the ball though.  It's a common tactic for those who have run out of ideas.

That quote is from a case where the little racist shite had claimed police harrassment and his claim was found to be baseless. A decision which directlt contradicts your assertion that he was targeted by the authorities. 

It also contains an explicit and direct contradiction from a judge as to your second and third contentions. In that she makes a statement about his limited popularity. 

I thought that the fact that she also noted that his supporters over-rated his importance was useful to understand your perspective as to why you might have thought a trivial little lager lout with a minor social media profile was some sort of existential threat to the establishment. 

As for your "playing the man" bollocks, it is always important to understand the motivation behind the bare words being used. You have revealed racist sympathies in the past and have again now. 

Ad Hominem may be a logical fallacy and a good reason for discounting an argument in a stricy logical context but we're not in that context. As an heuristic, ad hom can be perfectly servicable for many situations, including making a decision as to whether to view your posting as the fearless questioning of an enquiring mind or the contrarian trolling of a stupid loser. 

[D Angelo Barksdale]

8 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

An interesting take, but unfortunately an incorrect one.

I think you'll find, like all my takes, it is entirely correct.

[Scott Steiner]

2 minutes ago, coprolite said:

That quote is from a case where the little racist shite had claimed police harrassment and his claim was found to be baseless. A decision which directlt contradicts your assertion that he was targeted by the authorities. 

It also contains an explicit and direct contradiction from a judge as to your second and third contentions. In that she makes a statement about his limited popularity. 

I thought that the fact that she also noted that his supporters over-rated his importance was useful to understand your perspective as to why you might have thought a trivial little lager lout with a minor social media profile was some sort of existential threat to the establishment. 

As for your "playing the man" bollocks, it is always important to understand the motivation behind the bare words being used. You have revealed racist sympathies in the past and have again now. 

Ad Hominem may be a logical fallacy and a good reason for discounting an argument in a stricy logical context but we're not in that context. As an heuristic, ad hom can be perfectly servicable for many situations, including making a decision as to whether to view your posting as the fearless questioning of an enquiring mind or the contrarian trolling of a stupid loser. 

I'm afraid the judge's opinion on that particular case doesn't mean he isn't targeted by the authorities, which was my claim.  The judge never commented on whether his message resonated with ordinary people and whether that is a threat to the established order either, so you must be getting mixed up.

Your claim that I've revealed racist sympathies would carry more weight if you backed it up with some evidence.  Something concrete will suffice, not nonsense like claiming I'm an EDL fan boy or something

Anyway, I won't be lowering myself to your level with the abusive language etc.  Feel free to tackle my points in a reasonable manner if you like.  I welcome it, actually.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Steiner being an apologist for a racist

Shocked I am not.

[coprolite]

10 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

I'm afraid the judge's opinion on that particular case doesn't mean he isn't targeted by the authorities, which was my claim.  The judge never commented on whether his message resonated with ordinary people and whether that is a threat to the established order either, so you must be getting mixed up.

Your claim that I've revealed racist sympathies would carry more weight if you backed it up with some evidence.  Something concrete will suffice, not nonsense like claiming I'm an EDL fan boy or something

Anyway, I won't be lowering myself to your level with the abusive language etc.  Feel free to tackle my points in a reasonable manner if you like.  I welcome it, actually.

Evidence is it? You first Oswald. 

[Scott Steiner]

Plenty bluff, bluster and blabbering, but unsurprisingly no evidence of racist apologism from the Nasty Boys.

[Dan Steele]

[ICTJohnboy]

32 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

Plenty bluff, bluster and blabbering, but unsurprisingly no evidence of racist apologism from the Nasty Boys.

 

Nor will there ever be.

But what more would we expect from the the guy that, not only condoned Arlene Foster's participation in a bigoted  orange walk in Cowdenbeath last year, he actually applauded her involvement.

 

[ICTJohnboy]

1 hour ago, Antlion said:

And, to no one’s surprise, the latest alias follows the well-worn path of gradually, ever so gradually, pushing the racism via defending racists.  

 

His many posts (very many) are becoming almost instantly recognisable, no matter the alias, the thread or the timing. Does he seriously believe he'll influence anyone with his incessant racist and sectarian bile, and garner support for all the deeply offensive causes he so clearly believes in?

[TheNavigateur]

4 hours ago, coprolite said:

Assuming that it is possible and desirable to have such a policy, what do you mean by each of "views", "decide" and "heard"?

Views = opinions. Decide = enact, in any sense you might think of. Heard = read or heard. The established pattern is those with the most power (regardless of how they got that power) get the most prominent voice, which increases their power further by garnering support for actions that further their interests. If this is acceptable to you, why? If not, what do you think should be done about it?

Edited December 31, 2021 by TheNavigateur