This week in the strange death of Europe: 6 months prison for "Stop Islamization" banner

[Patooka]

So we're still doing this "OMG Europe is going to become the Islamic State" thing?

Really?

Who is "we"?

Sorry, you.


Did you claim that this was the "death of Europe" or not?

It's a thing for him. Europe is always dying, strangely.

 

[Metaphor]

So we're still doing this "OMG Europe is going to become the Islamic State" thing?

Really?

Who is "we"?

The purpose of this OP was to bring to light government punishment of speech.

The biggest culprits are Russia, China and Saudi Arabia for that. The Philippines, Syria and Turkmenistan are close runner ups. Belarus made it to the news for an even more extreme example of suppression of speech. Never seen you outraged about any of them. You only seem to have a massive throbbing erection for targets the alt right jizz over. Just own it man, there's great money to be made in right wing outrage porn.

If there are government suppression of speech stories you think are important to bring to light, please do so. I post stories that I come across as I come across them, I don't have a news aggregator.

I'm not sure what you want me to 'own'. I have a big problem with the State suppressing and punishing speech. I'm as close to a free speech absolutist as I know.

EDIT: Also, lol. As if I had ever held up as free speech luminaries any of the countries you mentioned.

 

[Metaphor]

So we're still doing this "OMG Europe is going to become the Islamic State" thing?

Really?

Who is "we"?

Sorry, you.


Did you claim that this was the "death of Europe" or not?

Yes, I made the figurative statement about the death of Europe in the post title, as I have done on many occasions.

But you are completely wrong about what the OP is "about". It is about the government suppression and punishment of speech, not 'about' the Islamisation of Europe.

 

[Ford]

Sorry, you.


Did you claim that this was the "death of Europe" or not?

Yes, I made the figurative statement about the death of Europe in the post title, as I have done on many occasions.

And so, the Europe is dead now? I mean, if you've proclaimed this on many occasions, it must have come true by now.


Honestly, I was considering a trip to the Europe once the pandemic restrictions were lifted, but I suppose I'll have to put those aspirations on hold for a thousand years or so?

 

[Metaphor]

Sorry, you.


Did you claim that this was the "death of Europe" or not?

Yes, I made the figurative statement about the death of Europe in the post title, as I have done on many occasions.

And so, the Europe is dead now? I mean, if you've proclaimed this on many occasions, it must have come true by now.


Honestly, I was considering a trip to the Europe once the pandemic restrictions were lifted, but I suppose I'll have to put those aspirations on hold for a thousand years or so?

This fascination that the board has with the rhetorical flourishes of people they already disagree with is sad but unsurprising.

Since I suspect you are not going to Europe to test her laws proscribing speech, I'm sure you needn't delay your trip. And since the 'death' in question concerns the dying by degrees of an ideal, people who don't share the ideal in the first place will probably think Europe is a more vital place with the erosion of that ideal. But I don't.

 

[TSwizzle]

But you are completely wrong about what the OP is "about". It is about the government suppression and punishment of speech, not 'about' the Islamisation of Europe.

The suppression and punishment of free speech is rife in Europe. The Tartan Taliban in Scotland (the SNP) just recently enacted law that will punish all sorts of “hate” speech. Authoritarians are a strange and dangerous bunch of weirdos and crackpots.

 

[Ford]

Since I suspect you are not going to Europe to test her laws proscribing speech, I'm sure you needn't delay your trip. .

Well it's a hypothetical journey to see some sights and eat some food, but apparently I need to be careful to not say anything too critical of Islam. Duly noted. Thank goodness Ramadan is over and I won't be arrested for breaking fast before the sun goes down in Islamic Europe!

 

[Patooka]

If there are government suppression of speech stories you think are important to bring to light, please do so. I post stories that I come across as I come across them, I don't have a news aggregator.

I'm not sure what you want me to 'own'. I have a big problem with the State suppressing and punishing speech. I'm as close to a free speech absolutist as I know.

EDIT: Also, lol. As if I had ever held up as free speech luminaries any of the countries you mentioned.

I'm not the one claiming to care about free speech. And if where you get your news has nothing from the countries a listed about speech suppression, your news outlets are fucking pathetic.

And just to clarify my position - fuck free speech. Fuck it in all its orifices. It used to be an ideal that meant something until it got hijacked by SJWs and woke/enlightened cunts like Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin or Steven Crowder. Nowadays "free speech" means "blanket unconditional immunity from consequences", but only in developed countries. So fuck free speech as it is outlined in mainstream today and that's why you don't see me posting thread after thread about it. You, on the other hand, seem to care and are suspiciously selective in your stories.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not the one claiming to care about free speech. And if where you get your news has nothing from the countries a listed about speech suppression, your news outlets are fucking pathetic.

I'll let ABC, news.com.au, The Guardian, BBC, Sky News and others that they are 'fucking pathetic'.

And just to clarify my position - fuck free speech. Fuck it in all its orifices. It used to be an ideal that meant something until it got hijacked by SJWs and woke/enlightened cunts like Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin or Steven Crowder. Nowadays "free speech" means "blanket unconditional immunity from consequences", but only in developed countries. So fuck free speech as it is outlined in mainstream today and that's why you don't see me posting thread after thread about it. You, on the other hand, seem to care and are suspiciously selective in your stories.

If you do not care, I suggest you do not respond to my threads about it. I don't come into other people's threads only to say "I don't care". That's just rude.

 

[Patooka]

I'm not the one claiming to care about free speech. And if where you get your news has nothing from the countries a listed about speech suppression, your news outlets are fucking pathetic.

I'll let ABC, news.com.au, The Guardian, BBC, Sky News and others that they are 'fucking pathetic'.

Nope, they've all mentioned the countries I've listed with worse examples of speech suppression than your "death of Europe".

If you do not care, I suggest you do not respond to my threads about it. I don't come into other people's threads only to say "I don't care". That's just rude.

Free Speech as it is portrayed in the current climate I couldn't give a fuck about. The continued disingenuous way the phrase is being used - yeah I care a lot. I should have been clearer and stated fuck your definition of free speech and the way it is being portrayed in vapid spaces like "the intellectual dark web". Along with the fact that you ignoring some pretty jarring examples of legitimate government suppression of speech implies a bad faith argument. Something I also care about as unchecked will lead to a further aberration of what free speech is intended to be.

 

[Metaphor]

Nope, they've all mentioned the countries I've listed with worse examples of speech suppression than your "death of Europe".

So what? What kind of obligation do I have to tailor my output to what you think are the most pressing examples of a topic I care about?

Free Speech as it is portrayed in the current climate I couldn't give a fuck about. The continued disingenuous way the phrase is being used - yeah I care a lot. I should have been clearer and stated fuck your definition of free speech and the way it is being portrayed in vapid spaces like "the intellectual dark web".

If you don't care about government censorship and proscription of speech, you don't care. I hardly see why you should get salty about selective coverage of it (as all coverage must be) if you don't care.

Along with the fact that you ignoring some pretty jarring examples of legitimate government suppression of speech implies a bad faith argument. Something I also care about as unchecked will lead to a further aberration of what free speech is intended to be.

What's bad faith about my arguments?

 

[Patooka]

So what? What kind of obligation do I have to tailor my output to what you think are the most pressing examples of a topic I care about?

Kind of my point. You claim to be against government overreach of free speech yet a journalist being tortured to death brings up nothing to your name. But suspended sentences for being fuckwits with no context provided in the news article and you cry death of Europe. Definitely a bad faith (bullshit) argument if one actually did care about "State suppressing and punishing speech".

If you don't care about government censorship and proscription of speech, you don't care. I hardly see why you should get salty about selective coverage of it (as all coverage must be) if you don't care.

The basic premise of Free Speech is to protect citizens when they are critical of their government. The history of free speech originated from the rejection of Lèse-majesté. The example you provided in this thread doesn't even cover protesters being arrested over critique of their government. It is distorting the intent simply to fashion outrage porn. I don't think using the argument of free speech should be distorted in that way. Also, I'm an unsophisticated barely evolved cunt. So being salty is my default fucking predication.

What's bad faith about my arguments?

See above. To reiterate; your assertion about caring "State suppressing and punishing speech", is a bit suspect when your contribution on such discussions is only for extreme fringe examples and not big glaring "this is a problem" ones.

 

[Metaphor]

Kind of my point. You claim to be against government overreach of free speech yet a journalist being tortured to death brings up nothing to your name.

I don't know which specific incident you are talking about, but whatever it is - what makes you think the State torturing someone to death because of their journalism is something that I would either approve or would be worth discussing? Who would disagree that the State executing journalists for journalism is Something Bad?

But suspended sentences for being fuckwits with no context provided in the news article and you cry death of Europe.

Three of the sentences were suspended, the fourth was not. But, I don't find comfort in 'suspended sentences'. I do not think the State should have taken any action against them at all.

Definitely a bad faith (bullshit) argument if one actually did care about "State suppressing and punishing speech".

You haven't explained anything. You are saying I don't care about government suppression of speech. Then why would I post about it?

The basic premise of Free Speech is to protect citizens when they are critical of their government. The history of free speech originated from the rejection of Lèse-majesté. The example you provided in this thread doesn't even cover protesters being arrested over critique of their government. It is distorting the intent simply to fashion outrage porn. I don't think using the argument of free speech should be distorted in that way. Also, I'm an unsophisticated barely evolved cunt. So being salty is my default fucking predication.

I don't think 'free speech' should be restricted to the freedom to talk about the government, though in fact I have posted negatively about lese-majeste laws in Thailand.

See above. To reiterate; your assertion about caring "State suppressing and punishing speech", is a bit suspect when your contribution on such discussions is only for extreme fringe examples and not big glaring "this is a problem" ones.

Either you think the Belgian government was right to criminalise the speech of these protesters or you don't. Your problems with my character or rhetoric shouldn't change that.

It's bizarre that you would be worried about 'extreme fringe examples', as if the existence of worse State interference in free speech somehow mitigates lesser examples.

I can be worried about wage theft by corporations in Australia of Australian workers who are not going to go hungry because of it. It's still a problem even though there are literal slaves in the world.

 

[untermensche]

A banner reading "Stop Islamisation" showed some women in burqas or nikabs

Some would say the clothing is "Islam", not "Islamisation", whatever that is. My spell check does not recognize the word.

Islamisation would include incremental cultural and legal changes that reflect the values (such as they are) of Islam.

For example, the decision to suspend a teacher for showing an image of the Islamic prophet Mohammed is an example of the Islamisation of Britain. Britain no longer has a blasphemy law--unless Muslims are offended.

Islamisation is hundreds of Muslim parents protesting a school because it has an LGBT curriculum that conflicts with their religious values.

Islamisation is the rise of a parallel legal system governing Muslim affairs.

That's simply called "fundamentalism". It is not specific to Islam.

It is like Christians disliking homosexuals and marriages with more than one wife or husband, polygamy.

 

[laughing dog]

I'd be interested in the exact law(s) that these protesters were found guilty of violating.

Does anyone know if it is  Belgian_Anti-Racism_Law?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is supposedly an atheist/agnostic board. Yet here, apparently, be apologists for blasphemy laws. Da fuq.

Hate speech laws != blasphemy laws.

I don't know who is in the right here but you can object to the treatment of a group you don't support.

 

[repoman]

yeah, want to have these muslim people with shit-pig ideas have a nice gentle carrot to join the rest of society. Not to be personally attacked so much as to raise their hackles.

I wouldn't mind "Stop Pentacostalization" posters here in Seattle for example, fuck that branch.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yeah and all Hitler was trying to do was stop the Jewification of Germany.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yeah and all Hitler was trying to do was stop the Jewification of Germany.

So in this analogy of yours, I take it the Nazis would be the guys carrying a banner, and the Weimar Republic would be the guys putting peaceful protestors in jail?

 

[Jarhyn]

yeah, want to have these muslim people with shit-pig ideas have a nice gentle carrot to join the rest of society. Not to be personally attacked so much as to raise their hackles.

I wouldn't mind "Stop Pentacostalization" posters here in Seattle for example, fuck that branch.

"... Want... People with shit-pig ideas... Not to [be] personally attacked"

You attack them personally, and then claim you don't want them to feel (be, in the original language) attacked?

This is a clear example of rank hypocrisy. With this statement you are making the act of being a hypocrite. You cannot claim both things and not be lying. It is not possible.