Quake3World

syp0s wrote:You believe in the concept of freedom, yet have never experienced it, and are probably the most gullible nation on earth when it comes to lapping up fascist ideologies.

hardly. Europe has been awash with autocratic regimes of one kind or another for most of its history, with a few exceptions, while America has never experience fascism (unless you're using the word 'fascism' in the flabby, expansive sense employed by Tumblr bloggers and Alex Jones devotees, meaning "stuff I don't like")

also, your comment about the experience vs the concept of freedom: what you're saying is exactly true of Europe, including this country (but a pretty questionable claim as far as the US is concerned). freedom is so conceptualised in this part of the world that most people - it seems to me - are unable to understand it outside of a legal context. this explains why someone like Shami Chakrabati is seen as a heroine of liberty among metropolitan liberal types (she really isn't)

case in point: 'hate speech' laws - a blatant violation of free speech - are unthinkable in the US (because they would be unconstitutional), but are considered the norm in Europe, and are defended even by people who claim to love free speech

Which is why we over here in merika are truely baffled when dipshits argue if laws against holocaust denial warranted... That's just something unfree morons would do...

seremtan wrote:

syp0s wrote:You believe in the concept of freedom, yet have never experienced it, and are probably the most gullible nation on earth when it comes to lapping up fascist ideologies.

hardly. Europe has been awash with autocratic regimes of one kind or another for most of its history, with a few exceptions, while America has never experience fascism (unless you're using the word 'fascism' in the flabby, expansive sense employed by Tumblr bloggers and Alex Jones devotees, meaning "stuff I don't like")

also, your comment about the experience vs the concept of freedom: what you're saying is exactly true of Europe, including this country (but a pretty questionable claim as far as the US is concerned). freedom is so conceptualised in this part of the world that most people - it seems to me - are unable to understand it outside of a legal context. this explains why someone like Shami Chakrabati is seen as a heroine of liberty among metropolitan liberal types (she really isn't)

case in point: 'hate speech' laws - a blatant violation of free speech - are unthinkable in the US (because they would be unconstitutional), but are considered the norm in Europe, and are defended even by people who claim to love free speech

Quite the contrary. I don't mean fascism in the cliched it's-still-1930-down-with-Mussolini-the-bugger, way you're referring.

I'm glad you brought up constitutional mandate. America's main religion is "freedom". In stark opposition to countries with a religious constitution that act secular, America is the only country in the western world with a constitution that ironically "grants" freedom, and not one single one of its inhabitants actually has any.

Similarly, you could walk a hundred miles and not meet a single British Christian.

In other words, constitutions mean nothing, so I'm not quite sure what your point is.

Nothing wrong with banning hate speech. Political correctness is an attempt at creating one language we can all enjoy. I support that. I'm extremely happy that you aren't allowed to call my daughter a Kike.

Whoa I didn't know your daughter is a kike

my hitler avatar is purely coincidental

No it's not...

syp0s wrote:I'm glad you brought up constitutional mandate. America's main religion is "freedom". In stark opposition to countries with a religious constitution that act secular, America is the only country in the western world with a constitution that ironically "grants" freedom, and not one single one of its inhabitants actually has any.

i literally have no idea what you're saying here. (p.s. America's religion is Jesus, last time i checked...)

In other words, constitutions mean nothing...

pretty sure the US Supreme Court, the ACLU, and a shit-ton of expensive lawyers would disagree, but ok

Nothing wrong with banning hate speech. Political correctness is an attempt at creating one language we can all enjoy. I support that. I'm extremely happy that you aren't allowed to call my daughter a Kike.

i'm sure you are, but the law has no power to 'disallow' anything; it merely punishes after the fact, and has no effect on thoughts and desires (i.e. the very sphere of the human condition in which freedom of speech and conscience is in its element, but law is powerless)

You're approaching it too literal, yanks see free speech as the fundamental stone of democracy, when they're the only nation to have it as a constitution. It's drilled into them like a religion.

Banning hate crimes, speeches or whatever is just a progressive society where common sense prevails. We don't need to be told when our freedoms are being taken from us, as a democratic society laws are made as such.

So the fat narcissistic poor midget is also a Jew?... ...

losCHUNK gets it.

feedback wrote:Whoa I didn't know your daughter is a kike

24/7, it's her "thing".

losCHUNK wrote:You're approaching it too literal, yanks see free speech as the fundamental stone of democracy, when they're the only nation to have it as a constitution. It's drilled into them like a religion.

sorry, i didn't realise we were discussing this in poetic metaphors. if i had, i'd have said that the progressive obsession with stamping out dissent against their orthodoxy at every opportunity is the expression of a faux secular fundamentalism for people who have no religion but can't shake off the need for one. also unicorns and pretty flowers

Banning hate crimes, speeches or whatever is just a progressive society where common sense prevails.

really? but i thought common sense was a good thing...

We don't need to be told when our freedoms are being taken from us, as a democratic society laws are made as such.

wat

seremtan wrote:

losCHUNK wrote:You're approaching it too literal, yanks see free speech as the fundamental stone of democracy, when they're the only nation to have it as a constitution. It's drilled into them like a religion.

sorry, i didn't realise we were discussing this in poetic metaphors. if i had, i'd have said that the progressive obsession with stamping out dissent against their orthodoxy at every opportunity is the expression of a faux secular fundamentalism for people who have no religion but can't shake off the need for one. also unicorns and pretty flowers

At 1st I thought you was being flippant but now I think you're being serious. That's not a metaphor either, tis a conspiracy.

seremtan wrote:

Banning hate crimes, speeches or whatever is just a progressive society where common sense prevails.

really? but i thought common sense was a good thing...

Now you're catching on.

seremtan wrote:

We don't need to be told when our freedoms are being taken from us, as a democratic society laws are made as such.

wat

Our freedoms aren't protected through free speech, or the American concept of it. It's defended by the representatives we elect to form a house of government to make social decisions as an organisation of individuals of varying backgrounds, the same people that need to convey their ideas through speech to get what they want. Our fight to vote was far, far more important than any rights to free speech. They deem what is socially acceptable or not, in such cases of racial discrimination. It's taken years to get to the point of where we are, but that's how a progressive society works.

We, or any other country don't need to be reminded of free speech laws, because we already have it unless it is seen as socially, as a collective group, un acceptable whereby laws can be enacted, retracted or amended at any time.

That goes for America too, free speech doesn't stop your freedoms being eroded, just look at native Americans, Black people, women or gays up until the 60s/70s. There's more than 1 way to skin a cat whilst skirting around free speech laws, as the same in any democratic government.

If our government was truely oppresive then they wouldn't just stop at restricting free speech, or the holocaust, it would be renamed to the IRA and no amount of words is gonna stop you from getting F'd in the A

syp0s wrote:

feedback wrote:Whoa I didn't know your daughter is a kike

24/7, it's her "thing".

Does she know that jooz don't consider anyone a joo unless their mother was a joo? I think some sects allow converts tho.

feedback wrote: Does she know that jooz don't consider anyone a joo unless their mother was a joo? I think some sects allow converts tho.

Is it that hard to figure out that sys0p hooked up with a Jewess?

Yes, most definitely have Jewish partner, and subsequently, Jewish children. Though, like every single Jew I've ever met, she's about as Jewish as I am.

Wait, actually, she's a lawyer, so that probably makes her more of a Jew than me.

Compare the reaction to this and that breivik guy who killed way more ppl(children).... Pathetic... Also.... Lol Europe... ...

Why ?, what's happened ?

I just keep hearing about the lorry catching fire in the channel tunnel

There was big rallies after the Breivik shootings n all if that's what you're getting at.

No there wasn't... And there wasn't 24/7 coverage for weeks after... And all the proposals to change laws, crack downs etc... At least here in the real world....

losCHUNK wrote:Our freedoms aren't protected through free speech, or the American concept of it. It's defended by the representatives we elect to form a house of government to make social decisions as an organisation of individuals of varying backgrounds, the same people that need to convey their ideas through speech to get what they want. Our fight to vote was far, far more important than any rights to free speech. They deem what is socially acceptable or not, in such cases of racial discrimination. It's taken years to get to the point of where we are, but that's how a progressive society works.

We, or any other country don't need to be reminded of free speech laws, because we already have it unless it is seen as socially, as a collective group, un acceptable whereby laws can be enacted, retracted or amended at any time.

so according to you, the extent of free speech is circumscribed by the majority (i.e. society). problem is, free speech protections primarily exist to protect minority views; majority views don't need special protection in a democracy because they have numbers on their side

no wonder you don't understand what i'm talking about

Like I said with America and blacks / womens / gays, that doesn't work anyway.

Arguing with Seremtan:

Person: I think X
Seremtan: YOU DON'T MAKE SENSE
Person: Yes I do, let me expand...
Seremtan: I knew you wouldn't understand


Ad infinitum.

scared? wrote:No there wasn't... And there wasn't 24/7 coverage for weeks after... And all the proposals to change laws, crack downs etc... At least here in the real world....

Yes there was and yes there was, I tuned in for the trial. I aint heard anything about Paris in a few days now.

And there were proposals to change anti terror laws, it also happened because of a failure in current laws, he was also acting alone and not a part of any network.

lol noob.

syp0s wrote:Arguing with Seremtan:

Person: I think X
Seremtan: YOU DON'T MAKE SENSE
Person: Yes I do, let me expand...
Seremtan: I knew you wouldn't understand


Ad infinitum.

Pretty much.

The only country in the world to have it as part of there constitution and having the same civil liberty problems, arguably worse, than all other democratic countries around the world.