Lindy West is a moron, isn’t she?

Framing free speech and political correctness as opposing forces is a false dichotomy intended to derail uncomfortable but necessary conversations, a smokescreen ginned up by the ethically lazy. The fact is, political correctness doesn’t hinder free speech – it expands it. But for marginalised groups, rather than the status quo.

Sigh.

She’s managed to get herself into the usual confusion.

Yep, it’s probably a bad idea to go around using words like nigger, kike, wop, and so on to describe people. It’s not civilised at the very least and it fails that test of being a gentleman of never unwittingly insulting someone to boot. So, OK, and fine with the general idea that there might be general societal admonitions against those that use such words.

However, this right to free speech stuff. It does indeed say that you can say anything you like subject only to libel and incitement to violence restrictions. And that incitement has to be overt and immediate too. That right to free speech also comes with it the necessity of putting up with the consequences of what you say though.

And the fundamental distinction between these two points is that one is what the law says and the other is what will be the societal consequences of what you do say.

The law says you can say nigger, kike, wop and so on. Society, rightly, says that you are a dullard boor racist if you do. Fine.

But that doesn’t then mean that PC increases free speech rights. It just means that there’s some societal come back from exercising those rights. The law says you can explain bukkakke parties to your granny: societal convention tends to demur on whether this is a good idea.

What West and others are doing is confusing themselves. They’ve internalised the general idea that free speech is something we regard as good. So also have they internalised the idea that not randomly (or directly) insulting or hurting people through thoughtless use of language is a good idea. Great, they’re right, they’re both good ideas.

But they’re not the same idea. And that’s where this idiocy of trying to insist that PC increases free speech rights comes from. Because they assuming that if they’re both good ideas then they must be the same one. They ain’t.

One is about what our rulers may not tell us we may say or not. The other is about the societal, not legal, conventions of what the results of our saying something are. You’ve every legal right (or, perhaps, you should have) to be a racist dullard boor. Equally, people are allowed to call you a racist dullard boor for being one.

To change the example a little, it’s now legal to commit adultery. We do still have social conventions against it. The second is a limitation on that legal right, not a reinforcement of it.

PC doesn’t expand free speech, it limits it. As we all agree that it should in fact: all we’re arguing about is how PC is enough?

55 thoughts on “Lindy West is a moron, isn’t she?”

  1. …one is what the law says and the other is what will be the societal consequences of what you do say.

    Up to a point Lord Copper, that point being where the PC pushers get their shibboleths enshrined in law, cf your last but one post.

  2. “It does indeed say that you can say anything you like subject only to libel and incitement to violence restrictions.”

    Neither of which was used to stop a woman saying she’d rather not do Brazilians for Muslims, so it seems it’s a little wider than that…

  3. it’s probably a bad idea to go around using words like nigger, kike, wop, and so on to describe people

    Racism is only fun when it’s casual racism: racism with its chinos on.

    So “Demented Porridge Wogs” isn’t wrong, because it’s funny.

    Sez Big Fat Lindy:

    “Why is Campus Safety everywhere?” I asked some older student in passing, […] “Oh,” they said, “they always beef up security when the black frat has a party.” […] it was a microaggression so macro that even I could see it

    Is this Lindy West the same Lindy West who wrote:

    Why it’s time to shut down poisonous US college fraternities

    By Lindy West

    Her love of guzzling plankton has clearly slowed her mind.

  4. Not even that, Tim, the way I read it. It’s a form of the age old positive discrimination idea. If we don’t use PC to censor people officially, minorities will be afraid to speak freely in front of all those dullard boor racists.

    And the usual lefty numeracy, assuming that some additional free speech for minorities outweighs some restrictions on free speech for the majority. Not recognising that it depends on the number of people affected on both sides, and the value of the speech affected (intended or not).

    Rather than saying, for example, that you can say anything you like and you may uncomfortable speech thrown back at you. Buy a helmet. But the law will prosecute (not protect you from, except for conspiracy grounds) physical aggression.
    You’re reasonably safe, deal with the rest yourself.

  5. S2 – I was thinking the same thing. But of course, in the mindset of such people, utopia will be achieved as soon as we have finally managed to vote in the correct set of scumbag politicians.

  6. Aren’t you talking about two different things, here? Polite, non boorish behaviour is a voluntary thing enforced in a voluntary manner.
    PC’s a whole other thing. It’s a standard of behaviour dictated by self appointed cultural censors & enforced with real teeth behind it. It’s the sort of thing, failure to observe the PC rules, are what employment disciplinary actions are made of.
    It has the effect of law, without actually being law.

  7. Steve, true, but we don’t want the state to decide what’s funny. ‘cos it won’t be.

    As for the “black frat” article, I wonder if ms West could explain how to distinguish benevolent PC authority from micro-aggressing nasty authority. And how to elect the right one.

  8. NielsR – to be fair, we need a code of conduct on racism to clarify what’s funny.

    Racism against gingers – funny.

    Racism against fat people – funny.

    Lenny Henry – not funny.

  9. I agree with Lindy West: white students “blacking up” on Halloween night is a disgrace. And speaking as a white, I’m deeply hurt by blacks who dye their hair blond, read, brown, etc.

    And now I’m off in search of another grievance to nurse.

  10. So Much For Subtlety

    But political correctness has never really been about banning words that offend minorities. It has been about thought control. They think that if they control the narrative, they can control our thoughts. If they can declare conservative words illegal, they can make people afraid to think conservative thoughts. You can see this by the fact that virtually anything you say about a minority is acceptable if it is celebratory, but forbidden if it has even a hint of condemnation.

    The depressing thing is that they seem to be right.

  11. So Much For Subtlety

    Ralph Musgrave – “And speaking as a white, I’m deeply hurt by blacks who dye their hair blond, read, brown, etc.”

    Not to mention driving cars. They should cease their shameless cultural appropriation. Instead they should ride zebras or whatever.

  12. “However, this right to free speech stuff. It does indeed say that you can say anything you like subject only to libel and incitement to violence restrictions. And that incitement has to be overt and immediate too.”

    Oh indeed Tim. But taking that definition: a bunch of bearded twats standing on the high street of Wiltshire towns and declaring their support for the 7/7 bombers is legal. Yet in this blog on Saturday ideas such as internment, deportation of muslims and denying them their free speech were offered up as solutions.
    So could we stop self-righteously holding ourselves up as the defenders of freedom of conscience and expression please.

  13. “You can see this by the fact that virtually anything you say about a minority is acceptable if it is celebratory, but forbidden if it has even a hint of condemnation.”

    Unless its against someone who has wandered off the Progressive reservation, in which case the sort of abuse which would make a KKK meeting blush is perfectly permissible.

  14. Is there anyone more pompous on this blog than Ironman? ‘Oh indeed Tim.’ For. Fuck’s. Sake. You. Boring. Boring. Stupid. Cunt.

    While I would not personally support internment or the deportation of legal and law-abiding non-Britons, I would love to hear from Ironman what his solution is? Because all we hear is that X or Y are not the solutions.

    Okay, genius.

    1. What is the annual figure of deaths that you would be prepared to accept in return for allowing your ‘bearded twats’ (you vile racist – beards reflect their religious culture) to ‘stand on the high street of Wiltshire towns and declare their support for the 7/7 bombers’?

    2. What happens if that number is exceeded? Is it eternally elastic?

    3. Unless and until you or yours are victims, you are clearly making your decision on behalf of others who will be shredded and maimed. By what right do you take it upon yourself to decide that a single person – never mind the inevitable hundreds – should be allowed to die in order to allow your ‘bearded twats’ their freedom?

    4. If the options you mentioned are not part of any solution, what’s your solution? ‘Dialogue’? Handwringing? Allowing more terrorists in with the undoubted miserable refugees so that they can come to your city, or your kids’ school, or your wife’s place of work, or yours, and start fucking hosing the place down? It would be a terrible shame if someone detonated himself next to you and your kids outside Anfield. And if you think it’s unlikely have another think.

    I am happy to accept the risk of death in return for the existence of cars. Road travel has inherent dangers, but the benefits are enormous.

    What benefits accrue to the rest of us from allowing ‘bearded twats to stand on the high street of Wiltshire towns and declare their support for the 7/7 bombers’?

    What would we lose if we simply made it a specific offence to promote or applaud the actions of terrorists and murders who have killed our fellow subjects?

    Chances of any answer coming forth from the colossal above-named twat: minimal.

  15. Interested: is there any evidence at all that allowing people with or without beards to stand on Wiltshire streets speaking as they choose, short of incitement to violence, increases the number of people maimed by terrorists?

    One might argue similarly that there’s no evidence that allowing racist affronts restricts the perceived freedom of minorities to speak their minds. But it’s a plausible hypothesis.

    Or one might argue that it’s not perceived freedom that matters, but actual freedom, and anyone wishing to exercise free speech needs to be just as robust about it as rich white men are. That’s reasonable, but not convincing if most of the people saying it are rich white men.

  16. This idea that Political Correctness acts as a restraint on free speech is true only true within a society. It’s offensive and un-PC for an Orangeman to parade down a Catholic street (or vice versa), yet there’s no social punishment because each side lives in separate societies.

    Equally, if Anjem Choudary from Ilford goes to Wootton Bassett and makes an un-PC demo during a funeral, none of his Muslim friends, Ilford neighbours, or colleagues from Islam4UK are going to reject him for it. Quite the opposite.

  17. “So also have they internalised the idea that not randomly (or directly) insulting or hurting people through thoughtless use of language is a good idea. Great, they’re right, they’re both good ideas.”

    Leftists do not believe this.

    They only object to hurting certain groups of ‘protected’ people.

    Everyone else is fair game. They are quite happy to abuse and vilify Jews, Christians, white people (generally), and then even gay, female, muslim or transgender people who do not hold a sufficiently left-wing viewpoint.

  18. @SJW

    ‘Interested: is there any evidence at all that allowing people with or without beards to stand on Wiltshire streets speaking as they choose, short of incitement to violence, increases the number of people maimed by terrorists?’

    Not that I’m aware of, no. Have you any evidence at all that it doesn’t?

    I’d say that real evidence is pretty hard to come by when the only true way to understand the motive of a given islamist loon is to ask him (assuming he will tell the truth). Unfortunately, most of them detonate or are killed by the cops or squaddies, so it’s not that easy.

    (Of course, when they get caught and do explain it – see for instance the guys who killed Lee Rigby, and their explanation – people such as yourself mostly tend to patiently explain to them that they are mistaken, that they’re not real muslims, and that they really did it because deprivation, or something.)

    I think I would say that the feeling that one is part of a large like-minded group, that one has the visible and vocal backing of one’s peers, that one’s peers are able to shout such things on Wiltshire streets without bthe authorities doing anything about it, probably has an encouraging effct, but I can’t prove it. Is it an actual spur to action? I don’t know. Is constantly bombarding people with messages about the evils of the UK and the ‘crimes’ committed against allah’s people by British soldiers create a motive? I think it probably does for those very few who might actually act.

    But so what? We are clearly in some sort of global conflict at the moment – not quite a war, but something akin to.

    In that context, do I believe that when an actual British soldier has been murdered in this way, and when other soldiers have been warned that they are being surveilled, and when police officers are being warned not to come to work in uniform and to park well away from their stations, that we should allow British citizens to stand on the streets loudly proclaiming their delight at the death of Lee Rigby, and their ever-so-carefully-drafted hopes that it might happen again? No I do not.

    Do I think that making that a criminal offence, and developing several similar offences, and using them to take vociferous islamists out of the population for a very long time would be a good thing? Yes I do (and lots of non-loony muslims apparently feel the same way – they’re all over social media).

    Do I think it would be the panacea we’re seeking? No, I don’t.

    Anyway, as with your mate Ironman – what’s your solution?

  19. “What is the annual figure of deaths that you would be prepared to accept in return for allowing your ‘bearded twats’ (you vile racist – beards reflect their religious culture) to ‘stand on the high street of Wiltshire towns and declare their support for the 7/7 bombers’?”

    Followed by “What benefits accrue to the rest of us from allowing ‘bearded twats to stand on the high street of Wiltshire towns and declare their support for the 7/7 bombers’?”

    The benefits are that we get to declare our vile prejudices in our vile way. Because we will have freedom of expression. But if we try to deny it to others because we don’t like what they are saying then someone else gets to decide they don’t like what we’re saying and gets to declare it vile and unacceptable and so should be banned. In fact ‘unacceptable’ is one of the favourite words on Tax Research UK blog.

    As for “hand wringing”; no, I would go to war right now. But then I’d be very clear what I was fighting for. You would just be a fascist in one colour shirt fighting fascists in another colour shirt, each shouting that the other is beyond the pale.

  20. SJW,

    > is there any evidence at all that allowing people with or without beards to stand on Wiltshire streets speaking as they choose, short of incitement to violence, increases the number of people maimed by terrorists?

    Not really the right question, concentrating as it does on Wiltshire — I know you weren’t being literal, but I assume you meant to refer more broadly to nice little bits of England.

    But compare Pakistan to India. Look at what has happened in every part of the world where Wahhabism has been allowed to get a serious foothold.

    So the question is: What is it about Wiltshire that makes you think it would be immune to these problems? If your answer is “It’s full of Wiltshirians,” I must ask you what measures, if any, you are willing to take to ensure that it stays that way?

    There’s a bit of footage doing the rounds at the moment of an old Christian talking at Speaker’s Corner. Usual stuff: some beardy earnest pensioner holding a Bible and telling anyone who’ll listen that Christ was our Saviour. Except, unlike most such preachers, he has an audience: a crowd of twenty or thirty Muslims, gathered threateningly close around him, getting well into his personal space, mocking him every time he opens his mouth. Now, don’t get me wrong: I’ve mocked the odd preacher before myself. But these guys are physically threatening. And the preacher is seriously fucking brave. I wouldn’t keep on the way he does in the face of that, knowing what their fellow-travellers tend to do to infidels. I don’t think a lot of us would stand up to that sort of naked public intimidation.

  21. “Interested: is there any evidence at all that allowing people with or without beards to stand on Wiltshire streets speaking as they choose, short of incitement to violence, increases the number of people maimed by terrorists?’”
    asks SJW of Interested

    “Not that I’m aware of, no.” He replies “Have you any evidence at all that it doesn’t?”

    So that’s the test for freedom of expression now is it? We must actively show our space doesn’t cause harm before we are allowed to speak? Seems a dangerous test for those who want to do unspecified things to stop “the muslims” from destroying our country. Are you able to show, really show, that there isn’t some nutter out there taking this as his cue to go on a killing rampage in some mosque?

  22. @Ironman

    ‘The benefits are that we get to declare our vile prejudices in our vile way. Because we will have freedom of expression. But if we try to deny it to others because we don’t like what they are saying then someone else gets to decide they don’t like what we’re saying and gets to declare it vile and unacceptable and so should be banned. In fact ‘unacceptable’ is one of the favourite words on Tax Research UK blog.’

    Ha ha ha. Look, you frightful dickhead, to deal with the last line first: your tedious little ongoing ‘look at me… did you see what I said to him?’ war of words with Richard Murphy means fuck-all to anyone – though I have no doubt whatsoever that you would moderate the comments on any blog you ran, because you are the arch shouter-downer, and impotent shouting-down is all you can do on this one. I’ve met your type many times. I’ve shat your type.

    I couldn’t give a shit what you think about anything, but here’s my position.

    The game has changed. It has fucking changed.

    We have never before faced people like this, people who are prepared – no, happy – to walk into heavily-populated cities and use modern weapons of war to kill as many people as possible in deliberately suicidal action.

    This. Has. Never. Happened. Before. The game has changed.

    We need to eradicate this cancer – militant extreme islamists – from our country before it eradicates us.

    I’ll bet a pound to a pinch of snuff that half of the people who got murdered in Paris at the weekend thought exactly like you: nothing to do with islam, we must allow in refugees, have you heard what those horrible bigots in the FN have said now?

    And yep, maybe the FN are horrible bigots – I certainly wouldn’t vote for them, or any racist party, because I am not a fucking racist.

    But islam is not a race and I am a realist. We cannot allow people – all in the furtherance of your prissy little theory about free speech extending to everyone, all the time, in every circumstance – to say and do what islamists are doing in this country, right now. You’re not a great statesman of the Victorian era, you know – you’re a cunt on a blog who chooses a superhero’s name as his alter ego.

    And what is their end game? Their end game, you earth shatteringly stupid thundercunt, is to usher in an islamist Britain. I have no idea if they will succeed, but I do know that if they do then the very thing you pretend to actually care about – ‘someone else getting to decide they don’t like what we’re saying and getting to declare it vile and unacceptable’ – will happen, in big, fuck-off spades.

    In some parts, it already has, you dullard. You try being gay in Bradford, or Brick Lane, and walking down the street hand in hand with your other half. Try opening a betting shop, or selling porn mags in your newsagent, or selling alcohol, or sticking up a billboard showing a girl in a bikini.

    Part of me wants to see it, almost, so that posturing windbags like you get to enjoy the experience of demanding your freedom of speech. I would really, really like to watch that. Shit, I’d pay money. In fact, try it now. Walk through Burnley in sparkly pink hotpants shouting about how much you love cock. I double fucking dare you, you preening shitbag.

    Now, where was I?

    Ah yes.

    ‘As for “hand wringing”; no, I would go to war right now. But then I’d be very clear what I was fighting for. You would just be a fascist in one colour shirt fighting fascists in another colour shirt, each shouting that the other is beyond the pale.’

    No you would not ‘go to war right now’, not now, not ever. Fucking ‘Ironman’. I have met plenty of fighting men and I’ve never met one who thinks or talks like you.

    Finally: fascist. Yeah right. Your use of the term betrays your ignorance, your jvenility, and the inadequacy of your arguments. Though everything you say pretty much achieves that.

    You have no solutions, you just want to shout ‘racist’ at people and frot yourself into a lather of self-rightous smuggery. Pompous dick.

  23. So Much For Subtlety

    Andrew M – “It’s offensive and un-PC for an Orangeman to parade down a Catholic street (or vice versa), yet there’s no social punishment because each side lives in separate societies.”

    Actually Orangemen parade down the streets in the Republic of Ireland with no problems at all. The locals come out and cheer them on. It is not even remotely offensive.

    Again we see the political purpose of PC. The parade itself is neither here nor there. The Left wants to demonise the Orangemen and Unionists. So they are attempting to find offense for political reasons. Cross the border, no one gives a damn.

  24. So Much For Subtlety

    Social Justice Warrior – “is there any evidence at all that allowing people with or without beards to stand on Wiltshire streets speaking as they choose, short of incitement to violence, increases the number of people maimed by terrorists?”

    Murdering White people is either inherent or it is learned behaviour. I don’t think it is in anyone’s genes to murder White people so it must be learned behaviour. Which means there is incitement and education. It follows that the incitement, of which standing on the street corner ranting, is the problem.

    But perhaps you think it is in their genes?

    “One might argue similarly that there’s no evidence that allowing racist affronts restricts the perceived freedom of minorities to speak their minds. But it’s a plausible hypothesis.”

    No it is not. Because it is not about encouraging minorities. It is about silencing everyone else. The aim is to produce a unity of voices as in the Soviet Union. Which was not known for anyone speaking their minds. As can be seen by all the minorities suddenly becoming Shakespeare now they have silenced everyone else ….. right?

  25. So Much For Subtlety

    ukliberty – “why do you suppose there is a “solution”?”

    So you think we should simply tolerate as many dead women and children as the radicals wish to inflict on us?

    Well, some how I don’t think that is going to happen.

  26. So you think we should simply tolerate as many dead women and children as the radicals wish to inflict on us?

    Hi SMFS!
    Please assume when you write “so you think X” that I don’t think X.
    Thanks!

  27. So Much For Subtlety

    ukliberty – “Please assume when you write “so you think X” that I don’t think X.”

    Happy to. Only in this case you continue to insist on more refugees and oppose any increase in powers to do anything about it. It is a reasonable inference.

    If it is wrong, please feel free to explain what your plan is.

  28. *Tips hat towards Interested*

    I like to think I’m a pretty moderate person, but the coverage of Paris has worried me. The only person who I can see who has put the event in it’s proper context is Hollande, and I wrote him off as a pissy socialist windbag who couldn’t manage a first-world economy if his life depended on it.

    All of a sudden Hollande has grown up, and at short order too. He’s made Cameron look mealy-mouthed, and followed up with a few thousand pounds of bombs to back up the talk.

    I’m concerned about ISIS, as they offend me. They worry me as they look like a threat to my kids, and I have no desire to see a few centuries of progress turned back for my daughter. Some might sneer at my narrow minded gorgeous attitude, but they’d happily see a kaffur girl employed in many ways (and I don’t mean “as a doctor, lawyer or engineer”).

    I am more concerned about ‘local’ nutters taking out a bar or gig in London, where my little sister lives.

    Again, you may sneer at my narrow minded provincialism- seeing a cosmopolitan, multiracial city as dangerous to a woman I still see as a (comparatively) little girl.

    So, what do we do in the face of this threat? Well, from my perspective, falling back on the saws of “if we limit free speech, we lose”, “we cannot fall to their level” and so forth look like calls to inactivity, lassitude and (ultimately) a kind of moral cowardice. Doing something dumb and excusing it on the grounds of “principle” is still doing something dumb, just with an ego-led act of self-fellatio thrown in for good measure.

    I’d genuinely not mind seeing France walk into ISIS held territory and turn the whole thing into a parking lot for tanks. I’d hope that we’d turn up to paint the lines (at an absolute minimum)*.

    Perhaps after that, we can go back to our western liberal sensitivities. I’d be happy with that. Rights for those who deserve them. I’d still sleep pretty well. Even as a moderate.

    *Alternatively- we have planes. They don’t. No need to lose a single service person.

  29. So Much For Subtlety

    John Square – “I’d genuinely not mind seeing France walk into ISIS held territory and turn the whole thing into a parking lot for tanks. I’d hope that we’d turn up to paint the lines (at an absolute minimum)*.”

    I agree with you up to this point. The problem is that this is not going to work. We will kill some young men. And then have to spend billions of pounds rebuilding all their schools and power plants and so on. While dealing with tens of millions of refugees applying for asylum.

    Where precisely would that get us? The fact is ISIS must lose and be seen to lose. But how to do that? That is a job for policemen with police powers. Not soldiers. However even that is hard because wanting to be a good Muslim is not a crime and it is hard to make it one.

    The only real long term solution is to force them all to become Christians and given the state of Christianity that is not going to work. So the short term solution is separation. We need as few of them here as possible. And as many gates and walls between those that are here and the rest of us as we can afford.

    That is not what we are going to get though. Admittedly the rich people – you know, those people who want more Third World immigrants – will retreat behind their privately owned walls. What we will get is ever shrinking civil liberties until we are no different from Syria. Import Syrians, get Syrian culture, end up with Syrian civil liberties.

  30. It is a cardinal mistake to accept the “special circs/things have changed” approach. It is tailor-made for political scum in search of police state justifications. Interested is misguided in his trust of the authorities. After all these are the same crew that imported the islamics in the first place. They can not be trusted.

    There are two possibilities. Islamic terror tries it on in this country or it does not.

    If it does not–beyond a few isolated Lee Rigby type scenarios–then the measures I proposed will prob do what is needed.

    Deprived of the vote islamics no longer have anything to offer political pigs. They have no more clout and the left will get a mega-pasting from their absence.

    With no more need to suck up and the islamics propaganda and subversion arms (muslim brotherhood etc) squelched—not to mention the pro-arab Senior Civil Service fucked-up and turned into history the Islamic subversion of society will cease.

    Also with no more arriving and their demographic takeover plans in serious financial trouble the pressure of the supposed Islamic future would be gone. Everyone–including them–will know their numbers aren’t going to expand at all let alone to reach take over level. Their numbers will go down and again that weakens them. Little point in a jihad they know they can’t win. Their numbers will decline with just two kids forced on them.

    Now if they do kick off (or even try to ) with capers as in France then things should get much nastier. For them not the rest of us. If violence is to be their game then let them live in a world of snoop and surveillance. Fuck equal before the law. They get snooped on and harassed by security clowns–not us. And any Islamic who doesn’t like it will still be free to take their family and pick up their £25000 payoff and buggeroff permantly to somewhere they like better. Somewhere Islamic–Germany perhaps.

  31. SMFS: bloody hell, that’s a grim scenario. I’m not sure I buy some of your tenets, though.

    Send in the bombers, make ISIs lose visibly, and go about handing over to some less looney people seems like a good start. If they turn out to be more mad than previously expected, go back and do it again.

    The cost will be born by any sane country or set of countries. I suspect that if colonialism were still an extant force we would have been in sooner and helped these places from medievalism into relative modernity with more grace than they’ve managed on their own, but having missed the, initial opportunity, let’s try that now, and police the post ISIS state as you suggest. That seems a good approach, but I suspect that coppers equipped to do the job as it currently stands would need training and equipment equivalent to an army, so let’s be pragmatic for the time being.

  32. So Much For Subtlety

    Mr Ecks – “After all these are the same crew that imported the islamics in the first place. They can not be trusted. …. If violence is to be their game then let them live in a world of snoop and surveillance. Fuck equal before the law. They get snooped on and harassed by security clowns–not us.”

    Can anyone else see what is wrong with this? The fact is our ruling class does not see terrorism as a problem. They do not see Muslims as a problem. They see us as the problem. They are, obviously, not to be trusted. So who thinks any power given to them will not be applied to us? The first arrest after the Paris attacks was not, of course, of an Islamist nutter but a White hair dresser.

    Who thinks their numbers will be reduced in this country? Sheer demographic inertia means they will be a majority in France soon enough. They will not be long behind them here.

    Wishful thinking is not going to get us anywhere.

    John Square – “Send in the bombers, make ISIs lose visibly, and go about handing over to some less looney people seems like a good start. If they turn out to be more mad than previously expected, go back and do it again.”

    How did that work in Afghanistan? The Taliban look set to be the first post-American government.

    “The cost will be born by any sane country or set of countries.”

    So we bomb the rubble, spend billions, resettled millions of refugees in Surrey, and get to do it all again in a few years. I really just don’t see how this will help. We need an Arab government that will keep them under control by ruthless repression – death squads and torture. What we cannot do. Why we are fighting Asad escapes me.

    “I suspect that if colonialism were still an extant force we would have been in sooner and helped these places from medievalism into relative modernity with more grace than they’ve managed on their own, but having missed the, initial opportunity, let’s try that now, and police the post ISIS state as you suggest.”

    Squaddies coming home in body bags because of suicide bombings there. We have just made it cheap for them to kill our soldiers. They don’t even need a ticket to Greece.

    This is not mediaevalism. The Middle East was usually more advanced than the West. This is the wave of the future, not some throw back from the past. We have to think seriously how to kill it.

  33. “Ha ha ha. Look, you frightful dickhead, to deal with the last line first: your tedious little ongoing ‘look at me… did you see what I said to him?’ war of words with Richard Murphy means fuck-all to anyone – though I have no doubt whatsoever that you would moderate the comments on any blog you ran, because you are the arch shouter-downer, and impotent shouting-down is all you can do on this one. I’ve met your type many times. I’ve shat your type.

    I couldn’t give a shit what you think about anything…”

    And that, unfortunately, is a true reflection of the quality of your mind isn’t it. “I’ve shat your type”. What quality.

  34. So Much For Subtlety

    Ironman – “And that, unfortunately, is a true reflection of the quality of your mind isn’t it. “I’ve shat your type”. What quality.”

    Says the Pot calling the Kettle Afro-Caribbean.

  35. If we’re willing to reduce freedom of speech in order to increase freedom from terrorism, let’s do it in the most effective way. We don’t need to close down mosques willy-nilly: most of them preach against terrorism. We don’t need more laws about what people can say in public: it’s already illegal to incite violence. But perhaps we do need restrictions on what can be taught. How about requiring anyone preaching or conducting religious classes or lectures to have a licence, to be withdrawn if they advocate or praise violence or intolerance?

  36. So Much For Subtlety

    Social Justice Warrior – “If we’re willing to reduce freedom of speech in order to increase freedom from terrorism, let’s do it in the most effective way.”

    And so we see the Left’s real agenda – the Blair route.

    “We don’t need to close down mosques willy-nilly: most of them preach against terrorism.”

    Name three. All of one fatwa has been put out by Western Muslims, hell, Muslims in general, against terrorism. That was not by a Sunni I believe.

    “We don’t need more laws about what people can say in public: it’s already illegal to incite violence.”

    As long as you are White.

    “But perhaps we do need restrictions on what can be taught. How about requiring anyone preaching or conducting religious classes or lectures to have a licence, to be withdrawn if they advocate or praise violence or intolerance?”

    Yeah. So you will use this law to close every actual Christian Church in the country. People like you cannot be trusted with these sorts of powers.

  37. “Name three”.
    You’d find many more than that in thirty seconds’ googling.

    “As long as you are White.” Those Muslims jailed for what they said at the Danish embassy protests are white, are they?

    “So you will use this law to close every actual Christian Church in the country.”
    Is every Christian Church advocating violence? I don’t think so, but if you’re right then yes, let’s stop them.

  38. “So you will use this law to close every actual Christian Church in the country.”

    That’s the fucking point about closing down free speech you cretin. If we do it to somebody then somebody else will do it to us. This shouldn’t be difficult, just read the original point and try to keep the same idea in tour head for 30 seconds without screaming “I’ve shat your type”.

  39. All of a sudden Hollande has grown up, and at short order too.

    I had an inkling at the time that he would take this personally, because of the attacks on the Stade de France when he was in the stadium. It sometimes takes a Frenchman taking things personally to get them off their arse.

  40. “Yeah. So you will use this law to close every actual Christian Church in the country. People like you cannot be trusted with these sorts of powers.”

    But the power to tear down mosques, disenfranchise, intern or expel Muslims, couldn’t possibly be abused by these same people?

    I get the impression that neither side of this argument trusts the state not to fuck up this country in its response to terrorism. And we’re really just arguing over how it might manage to deal with the islamist problem before it starts fucking up. Which seems kind of futile.

  41. So Much For Subtlety

    Social Justice Warrior – “You’d find many more than that in thirty seconds’ googling.”

    So you cannot name three. Fine.

    “Is every Christian Church advocating violence? I don’t think so, but if you’re right then yes, let’s stop them.”

    Intolerance is the word you used. As we all know you would. So anyone who hold to a Christian view about Gay marriage. Your side has form and can’t be trusted.

    Ironman – “That’s the fucking point about closing down free speech you cretin. If we do it to somebody then somebody else will do it to us. This shouldn’t be difficult, just read the original point and try to keep the same idea in tour head for 30 seconds without screaming “I’ve shat your type”.”

    Except they are doing it to us anyway. It is the open goal of the SJWs to close every Church in the country, or at least to force them to become non-Churches. There is no longer any tolerance for other people in this country. Why do you think Second generation Muslims are more likely to be terrorists? They have been taught by the SJWs. They are funded by them too – the 7-7 bombers got large sums of money from the BBC.

    What you are demanding is that we should accept any level of bombing without doing a damn thing – and that we should not resist attacks from the Left and the Islamists aimed at a fundamental transformation of Britain.

    On top of which I continue to point out that the only way to preserve those liberties is to return Britain to its indigenous inhabitants who have some belief in civil liberties.

    NielsR – “But the power to tear down mosques, disenfranchise, intern or expel Muslims, couldn’t possibly be abused by these same people?”

    Well not the same people, no. Different people. We have a choice between a one-time violation of human rights or the long slow death of all human rights. Neither is ideal. Not a single Third World immigrant should have been let into Britain and its continued existence depends on their number being reduced. Which is not going to happen.

    We import Pakistanis, we get Pakistani politics, we end up with Pakistani civil liberties.

  42. “What you are demanding is that we should accept any level of bombing without doing a damn thing – and that we should not resist attacks from the Left and the Islamists aimed at a fundamental transformation of Britain.”

    And your evidence.for that assertion is…oh just fucking forget it.

  43. “So you cannot name three.”
    Yes, obviously I can, and so can anyone else who spends a few seconds investigating the question. (I realise that you don’t like to discover actual facts, since they tend not to match your prejudices.)

    “Intolerance is the word you used. As we all know you would. So anyone who hold to a Christian view about Gay marriage.”

    I had in mind that it would be better not to allow Imams or anyone else to preach that Jews are apes and pigs.

    I don’t believe there is a single Christian view on same-sex marriage, but I a Christian preacher chooses to tell his followers that they should not marry people of their own sex, that’s up to him. If on the other hand he tells them that law as it now stands is a vile corruption to be overthrown by any means including violence, there would be some reason to stop him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *