tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post1968977641921854898..comments2024-03-27T09:14:27.496+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Against Internet AuthoritarianismPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-29922006928463481502021-07-16T10:36:22.050+01:002021-07-16T10:36:22.050+01:00“I certainly don't care if some bigot loses th...“I certainly don't care if some bigot loses their job for being a bigot”<br /><br />Or put another way, ‘bigots’ should be forced to starve and live a subsistence existence; you see the liberal left do believe in inequality for ‘bigots’ and their children!<br /><br />In fact wokists need inequality so that the identified ‘bigots’ can suffer. And in that respect we have the perfect system for the job, globalised neo liberal capitalism with full on wokism thrown in for good measure. A mix of the market and woke legislation, I now see the glorious future.<br /><br />With the cream at the top (heading off into space), the worthy middle classes in the middle, the worthy working classes just below the middle, the worthy poor supported at the bottom and the ‘bigots’, the unworthy, all festering in a cesspit of poverty, crime and misery (they deserved it!).<br /><br />So that much different to what we have now. But that’s woke for you.<br /><br />The new motto of the woke left, "All power to the advertisers!"BCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-71872980526244595012021-07-16T10:23:11.708+01:002021-07-16T10:23:11.708+01:00In my view, if you are not anonymous you should be...In my view, if you are not anonymous you should be able to say absolutely anything you like and accept the consequences. No censorship whatsoever for those who are not anonymous, no matter what they say.<br /><br />And if you are anonymous you have to accept that you might be moderated.<br /><br />Of course, this is censorship by the back door because people who are not anonymous will not go against the prevailing orthodoxy, for fear of losing their jobs, advertisers pulling out etc (Apple and Coca Cola would never dream of being seen in bad company and will use their power accordingly!). I mean, it isn't that long ago that most people would never have dared to support gay rights.<br /><br />Still, I don't really see a more equitable option.<br /><br />BCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-74960285940315848712021-07-13T13:17:43.812+01:002021-07-13T13:17:43.812+01:00«the bill does consider new laws for criminalising...«<i>the bill does consider new laws for criminalising online behaviours, defined as those "likely to cause harm."</i>»<br /><br />Indeed many think that evil thoughts lead to evil words that lead to evil deeds, and it is best to sanction the evil thoughts and evil words before they can lead to evil deeds.<br /><br />There are already statutes that cover a lot of that, for example:<br />https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1?timeline=false&view=plain<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_5_of_the_Public_Order_Act_1986<br /><br />All they need is a slight widening of the wording, if that is necessary at all.Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-1413979053327832982021-07-13T12:53:41.376+01:002021-07-13T12:53:41.376+01:00“I certainly don't care if some bigot loses th...“<i>I certainly don't care if some bigot loses their job for being a bigot</i>“<br /><br />«<i>I do, and for a number of reasons. [...] In 2021 getting somebody sacked risks condemning them to penury. [...] people shouldn't get sanctioned in any way for speaking freely, however objectionable what they say is</i>»<br /><br />The argument used is that evil thoughts lead to evil words which lead to evil deeds, therefore if "bigots" speak their mind some bad people may be inspired or encouraged by those evil words to commit evil deeds like violence against victims, and therefore evil thoughts and words are, "objectively", violent aggression, and so many people would think that for bigots who hold evil thoughts and speak evil words “<i>condemning them to penury</i>” for the rest of their lives is the least sanction they deserve.<br /><br />I guess that many people would welcome for the government to have a web page listing known "bigots" with name, address and employer, because they believe that have a right to know if their neighbours or employees has evil thoughts or speaks evil words that, "objectively", might put someone in danger of violent aggression. For example, who would want to have in their neighbourhood or among their colleagues some "vicious bigot" described by an MP in Parliament as a "<i>f*cking racist and antisemite</i>”?<br /><br />Therefore many important people including this Conservative government argue that <a href="https://taibbi.substack.com/p/everybodys-saying-it-guardrails" rel="nofollow">democracy needs guardrails</a>, and believe that what George Orwell wrote in 1945 was profoundly misguided:<br /><br />“<i>One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ʻbourgeois libertyʼ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ʻobjectivelyʼ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines.</i>”Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-45577728175714229612021-07-13T12:30:51.938+01:002021-07-13T12:30:51.938+01:00«For its part, Labour has decided being seen tough...«<i>For its part, Labour has decided being seen tougher than the Tories is where the opportunities lie.</i>»<br /><br />As mentioned in a previous comment even an editorial on "The Guardian" now disagrees with that electoral strategy:<br /><br />https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/09/the-guardian-view-on-keir-starmers-party-reset-and-clarify-what-labour-is-about<br />“<i>Sir Keir should seize the chance to anchor a bigger role of the state in popular sentiment. Voters who switched from Labour in 2017 to the Conservatives in 2019 are leftwing on economic issues. [...] If Sir Keir opts for a quiet life, Labour risks ending up being Conservative-lite on the economy and Conservative-lite on its principles. It would be a mistake for him to think voters just want healthier versions of Tory policies. Labour’s “diet Johnson-ism” would pale in comparison to the real thing. [...] He would be going with the grain of his party if he tilts leftward on the economy.</i>”<br /><br />Note however that “<i>leftward on the <a rel="nofollow">economy</a></i>” only rather than also on “<i>its principles</i>”.<br /><br />It is still a major betrayal of thatcherism/"centrism", which is an electoral strategy that cannot fail, only be failed, according to the mandelsonians.<br />Following that logic Keir Starmer should move to the right of the Conservatives on the economy, for example by advocating the full deductibility from taxes (and not merely from income) of interest paid on mortgages, or a formal state guarantee that it will fully compensate property owners if property prices fall lower than the price for which a property was purchased originally.Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-60233737106498943062021-07-13T10:14:35.215+01:002021-07-13T10:14:35.215+01:00And as a side note, they've specifically promi...And as a side note, they've specifically promised to make content on newspaper websites, including comments, exempt from this bill.chris stileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16220270505988683271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-72455835730519667092021-07-13T10:14:26.090+01:002021-07-13T10:14:26.090+01:00I certainly don't care if some bigot loses the...<i>I certainly don't care if some bigot loses their job for being a bigot</i><br /><br />I do, and for a number of reasons.<br /><br />Humanitarian: if we were still in 1971, our bigot could get his cards on Thursday, sign on for the dole on Friday and walk into another job on Monday. If we were in 1991, the first two of those would apply. In 2021 getting somebody sacked risks condemning them to penury.<br /><br />Legalistic: maybe people should get fired from a job for inappropriate conduct in the workplace, but nobody should get fired from a job for things they do, let alone say, off the job<br /><br />Trade union: actually people shouldn't get fired as a sanction, full stop - at least, that should be our starting assumption<br /><br />Liberal: people shouldn't get sanctioned in any way for speaking freely, <b>however objectionable what they say is</b> (after all, if it wasn't objectionable you wouldn't want to sanction it, and the question wouldn't arise)<br /><br />Relativist: today's common sense is tomorrow's bigotry; you can't be sure that it won't be you that gets left behind next time, so you shouldn't call for any sanction that you wouldn't be prepared to suffer yourself<br /><br />HTH, as they say.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07009879034507926661noreply@blogger.com