Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Puck said:
Firstly, that assumes there would be no peacekeeping troops of any sort on the ground, which seems somewhat unlikely to me. But let's pretend that's the case.

If American companies are operating in Ukraine and using American workers then you can be sure America will protect them and any American government would react VERY strongly if American citizens were harmed. If Russia was to invade Ukraine it would be virtually impossible for them to guarantee the safety of those Americans or their - potentially very expensive - equipment. There have been plenty of instances of misdirected missiles hitting hospitals or schools and allied troops killed by "friendly fire" in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. So, to be sure they didn't kill an American and start a direct confrontation, the Russians would have to notify the Americans of their intentions and the Americans would then have to evacuate their people before any invasion began.

Franky, if you think the USA is untrustworthy enough to engage in that sort of behaviour then why would you rely on a treaty of mutual defence? What's to stop the USA simply refusing to honour the treaty?
Click to expand...
Treaties are harder to deny than business without obligations.

Also, business does not prevent Russia from manufacturing regime change.

There needs to be more assurances than that.
 
Osvaldorama said:
It is true though. Just because you’re ignorant and naive of history doesn’t make it less true.

How did Nazi germany censor speech?
How did Soviet Russia censor speech?

Was it obvious to their citizens at the time? Or were they exactly like you… naive?
Click to expand...
I don't agree with much you say. lol, even though most on here probably see me as on your side so don't take this as a direct reply to your post here. More of an an addition containing my opinion on "free Speech."

I think anybody "should" be able to say whatever they want. Same as has always been. Society ostracises people and laws are not needed.
That includes the "right to offend." I am a comedy fan. Comedy is sh1t since right to offend was restricted to "Orange Man Bad", "Brexiteers are racist" and "Fromage."
TBH I watch GB News quite a lot because I am an adult and I do hear stuff I think is too far but if I am being honest it is also the only channel that lets the left speak as well!! without a whitewash of Saint Alistair Campbell bashing liars???? people with no morals??? etc. GB News is 50/50 good debate and 50/50 one sided or presenters I don't like but it puts the BBC and SKY <----did because they've fallen now to shame because they DO have left and right views. OK I mainly like it because there are lots of comedians on it. but hey ho.

We have laws against racism, discrimination..etc....enforce them!!!. If someone is breaking the law then enforce it! But stop trying to pin these laws on things that are merely offensive...or rude...or not on message!

OK I will stop. I've drunk too much. I want peace not war, but at the same time I want Ukraine restored not split so I am conflicted there!. See you all tomorrow :D
 
ChilcoSaint said:
Careful Os, you and loading are very close to another ban, and it will be at least 3 months this time. How many times do I have to warn you both not to make personal attacks?
Click to expand...
Maybe this channel (if t is to stay) should not involve bans like this! We have thick skins.
 
ImpSaint said:
I don't agree with much you say. lol, even though most on here probably see me as on your side so don't take this as a direct reply to your post here. More of an an addition containing my opinion on "free Speech."

I think anybody "should" be able to say whatever they want. Same as has always been. Society ostracises people and laws are not needed.
That includes the "right to offend." I am a comedy fan. Comedy is sh1t since right to offend was restricted to "Orange Man Bad", "Brexiteers are racist" and "Fromage."
TBH I watch GB News quite a lot because I am an adult and I do hear stuff I think is to far but if I am being honest it is also the only channel that lets the left speak as well!! without a hitewash of Saint Alistair Campbell bashing liars???? people with no morals??? etc. GB News is 50/50 good debate and 50/50 one sided or presenters I don;t like but it puts the BBC and SKY <----did because they've fallen now to shame because they DO have left and right views. OK I mainly like it because there are lots of comedians on it. but hey ho.

We have laws against racism, discrimnation..etc....enforce them!!!. If someone is breaking the law then enforce it! But stop trying to pin these laws on things that are merely offensive...or rude...or not on message!

OK I will stop. I've drunk too much. I want peace not war, but at the same time I want Ukraine restored not split so I am conflicted there!. See you all tomorrow :D
Click to expand...
You want racism laws enforced. Hate laws enforced. But absolute free speech. Those things are not compatible. I would argue that 99% of those who get to court are outright racists. Nothing is perfect and some people will get a chat incorrectly. Like when you get pulled over but have done nothing wrong.
 
......loading...... said:
You want racism laws enforced. Hate laws enforced. But absolute free speech. Those things are not compatible. I would argue that 99% of those who get to court are outright racists. Nothing is perfect and some people will get a chat incorrectly. Like when you get pulled over but have done nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

IF someone is racist yeah. prosecute. If the law covers it. But people should be able to talk about immigration without those that disagree continually trying to switch the subject matter to "immigrants" and not the policy of "immigration."

What is "absolute" free speech? Chubby Brown? Bernard Manning? These guys made their beds and society (eventually) got rid of them! There is a big difference between free speech and what we have now which is an over correction of self censure because no-one dares say anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lemons and Oranges, Schrodinger's Cat, Billy Bates and 1 other person
ImpSaint said:
IF someone is racist yeah. prosecute. If the law covers it. But people should be able to talk about immigration without those that disagree continually trying to switch the subject matter to "immigrants" and not the policy of "immigration."

What is "absolute" free speech? Chubby Brown? Bernard Manning? These guys made their beds and society (eventually) got rid of them! There is a big difference between free speech and what we have now which is an over correction of self censure because no-one dares say anything.
Click to expand...
I think there is a lot of scare-mongering. Every time someone has said look at tweet that got the police called it has said something horrendous about muslims. It feels like one group of people with one narrative, all desperate to be racist.

Also, Putin abuses our free speech to sow discord.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImpSaint
......loading...... said:
I think there is a lot of scare-mongering. Every time someone has said look at tweet that got the police called it has said something horrendous about muslims. It feels like one group of people with one narrative, all desperate to be racist.

Also, Putin abuses our free speech to sow discord.
Click to expand...

Both yours and Imp's posts are true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImpSaint
......loading...... said:
You want racism laws enforced. Hate laws enforced. But absolute free speech. Those things are not compatible. I would argue that 99% of those who get to court are outright racists. Nothing is perfect and some people will get a chat incorrectly. Like when you get pulled over but have done nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

It's not how the law works in the UK. You have the absolute right to freedom of speech - this is something that is entrenched in ECHR as well as something that dates back centuries in UK statute.

There are then potentially consequences to your free speech. Most of these consequences are connected to incitement. For example incitement to violence. It is encouraging another to commit a crime. As such nothing stops you from speaking the words, but there are consequences.

Then we have the JD Vance misunderstanding of UK law (probably deliberate given his Yale background, but that's opinion!). The Online Safety Act of 2023 is mainly geared towards keeping children safe, but does have provisions for preventing illegal activity. Many of the clauses here are written to stop state sponsored disinformation, but does place a responsibility on social networks to prevent disinformation that could lead to crime. It also places responsibility on social media networks to remove illegal content.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lemons and Oranges, Schrodinger's Cat and ......loading......
......loading...... said:
Treaties are harder to deny than business without obligations.
Also, business does not prevent Russia from manufacturing regime change.

There needs to be more assurances than that.
Click to expand...
A defence treaty doesn't necessarily stop Russia "manufacturing regime change" either. Weren't we told both the Brexit vote and Trump's first election were because of Russian interference?

It's also highly unlikely America would ever sign a treaty that actually obliged it to do anything like that. Even article 5 of the NATO treaty isn't watertight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImpSaint
Mostlymadeofwater said:
There are then potentially consequences to your free speech. Most of these consequences are connected to incitement. For example incitement to violence. It is encouraging another to commit a crime. As such nothing stops you from speaking the words, but there are consequences.
Click to expand...
This is, and always has been, an absurd position. By this logic there was total freedom of speech under Stalin. It's just that if you said the wrong thing there would be consequences. Most likely a one-way trip to the gulag.
 
ImpSaint said:
IF someone is racist yeah. prosecute. If the law covers it. But people should be able to talk about immigration without those that disagree continually trying to switch the subject matter to "immigrants" and not the policy of "immigration."

What is "absolute" free speech? Chubby Brown? Bernard Manning? These guys made their beds and society (eventually) got rid of them! There is a big difference between free speech and what we have now which is an over correction of self censure because no-one dares say anything.
Click to expand...

People are allowed to talk about immigration with no issue. Unfortunately many take this to the point of blaming issues on immigrants or in many cases anyone who isn't white. We only need to look at the riots of last Summer for that one. There were prosecutions around this - all were incitement to racial or religious hatred, or incitement to violence and the law here is about intent.

It's an issue that is hugely misunderstood and used by some politicians to twist our natural xenophobia to their own ends. I have friends that constantly post about 'illegal immigrants', despite me continually letting them know that there is no such thing in the UK, blaming all of our ills on them, despite there being hardly any of them. That said, you can always talk about immigration. It's probably not the big problem, but is likely something we want to get a grip on better than our previous government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ......loading...... and ImpSaint
Puck said:
This is, and always has been, an absurd position. By this logic there was total freedom of speech under Stalin. It's just that if you said the wrong thing there would be consequences. Most likely a one-way trip to the gulag.
Click to expand...

Given that all media were state controlled under Stalin, it's not the best analogy, but yes you are right. The difference is that state and judiciary are not connected in the UK where they were in the USSR. It's a huge leap to compare UK law to the USSR.

I think the way our law works does actually make sense. You are not prevented from speech in any way, but if you encourage another to commit a crime, you have committed one yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Schrodinger's Cat, StJabbo1, ChilcoSaint and 2 others
Puck said:
A defence treaty doesn't necessarily stop Russia "manufacturing regime change" either. Weren't we told both the Brexit vote and Trump's first election were because of Russian interference?

It's also highly unlikely America would ever sign a treaty that actually obliged it to do anything like that. Even article 5 of the NATO treaty isn't watertight.
Click to expand...

We still have huge issues related to state interference from Russia. They are extremely good at it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ......loading...... and Le Tissier's Laces
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back