/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

CosmicScientist wrote:Correction. The rich whine about the potential of accommodating the poor near them. I haven't read the quotes but there's been referrals to delusion.

You're probably thinking of the rich complaining about how Corbyn suggested that the government should seize rich people's property near the fire and house the poor in there.

If someone wants to open their door for the poor awesome that's very kind of them, but the rich aren't obligated to be nice just because they're rich.

CosmicScientist wrote:

ShadowDimentio wrote:

CosmicScientist wrote:Correction. The rich whine about the potential of accommodating the poor near them. I haven't read the quotes but there's been referrals to delusion.

You're probably thinking of the rich complaining about how Corbyn suggested that the government should seize rich people's property near the fire and house the poor in there.

Get yer head out of yer arse mate.

That was a week ago.

This is rich being rich and flipping the V's at the disadvantaged poor who have lost their homes, belongings, friends and family.

Grow a heart and stop pretending there are communists under your bed.

>asking shadowmemes to stop shitposting

lmao conservatives could murder shadow's family and he would still defend them on the internet

corbyn wanted to seize properties that were not being used and were just basically financial assets. he didn't want to tell rich people to get out of their homes this is now a soup kitchen. that would have more social consequences than publicly saying that hitler was a pretty swell guy.

ColonicAcid wrote:that would have more social consequences than publicly saying that hitler was a pretty swell guy.

iunno that's worked for some pretty senior labour figures in the past

ColonicAcid wrote:corbyn wanted to seize properties that were not being used and were just basically financial assets. he didn't want to tell rich people to get out of their homes this is now a soup kitchen. that would have more social consequences than publicly saying that hitler was a pretty swell guy.

Who gives a shit if they're just assets or not, those rich chucklefucks paid perfectly good money to own the property and do what they want with it, the government has no right to step in and demand they allow a bunch of people to take refuge in their property, regardless of what unfortunate circumstances transpired to cause them all to lose their house.

This is basic property rights that EVERYONE is entitled to you clown.

nobody is entitled to anything in the UK lmao what are you talking about.

We don't have a constitution. Don't apply your buzzwords to us because that's now how it works on the other side of the pond amigo.

we have property laws, but those laws can be changed. Corbyn is asking them to change the laws so that uninhibited properties can be used as temporary shelter.

>No property rights
>No speech protections
>Electoral system can stalemate HARD

Your government sucks Britain

Anyways, yeah and it's totally commie of Corbyn to try and push that change, that whenever the government feels like suddenly your ownership of property vanishes and now you have a bunch of government sanctioned squatters tanking the value of the property. And, if we're to go by what Corbyn originally called for, you don't get compensated at all, so just take it you rich scumbag.

newsflash: heavily left politician says he wants to force ideologically left politics


more at 11

ColonicAcid wrote:nobody is entitled to anything in the UK lmao what are you talking about.

We don't have a constitution. Don't apply your buzzwords to us because that's now how it works on the other side of the pond amigo.

we have property laws, but those laws can be changed. Corbyn is asking them to change the laws so that uninhibited properties can be used as temporary shelter.

>the UK is a constitutional monarchy
>we don't have a constitution
>???

There's no written constitution. The closest thing we have is the bill of rights.

I mean if you really want to pretend that there's a constitution you're welcome to, but the only rule that involves is "The monarchy stays the fuck away from governing other than giving the ceremonial nod.".

Freedom to do things except (vaguely defined thing that can mean everything) is essentially not freedom to do anything

Well, you're free to do whatever so long as you don't do anything that is considered to restrict the freedom of others.
I don't see the problem here.

How does calling someone a nigger online restrict their freedom

ShadowDimentio wrote:How does calling someone a nigger online restrict their freedom

It depends (tm). I would say there is certain things that are disrespectful that we can agree on are fucking annoying, like people protesting during a funeral. You certainly can't talk about killing the president without getting the secret service to investigate you/arrest you, so I would say that there are limits in "free speech".

Regardless the question is what is "free speech"? What if your free speech impedes on others (for example people walking down a highway or busy street protesting).

The people driving the cars can go around however they shouldn't have to, however protest is a form of speech.

I'm not saying its right or wrong to restrict speech but its very subjective what is harmful in a society.

starmute wrote:I'm not saying its right or wrong to restrict speech

nigger

Protesting a funeral is distasteful but not a crime in any way, nor does it infringe on anyone's rights (provided it's kept civil) and isn't a crime. Threatening to kill someone, let alone the president, ostensibly the most powerful man on earth, is a VERY big crime.

The US has always erred on the side of freedom regarding speech, and basically unless you're straight up threatening someone by name then nobody can really do anything to you legally. Socially certainly, but not legally.

Yeah, but we're not talking about the US.

Starmute was, and that's who I was responding to dummy.

fucking americunts shoving your country into civil discussion between brits and krauts

Saying something negative about a minority isn't messing with their freedom
Having a specific opinion on a religion(Notably islam these days) isn't messing with their religious freedom either

But you can still get arrested and/or fined over doing these things in some countries. So it can be said they're not free to speak their mind. Or, in simple terms
They don't have freedom of speech

it might be harmful, depending on your definition of violence
verbal abuse does exist, the challenge lies in separating bitches who need to grow a pair from people who've been legitimately shat on and deserve protection

The problem there is that the law does not do this

It doesn't if you follow a strictly positivist interpretation, which we Germans have historical reasons to avoid.

The whole property seizing deal is kinda funny given apparently it's proposing using the same laws that are traditionally used to kick the poor out of their homes, usually because they're declared unsuitable for habitation, taking ownership of the land and tearing down the buildings, then building luxury housing that only the rich can afford and selling it off for a huge profit.

I was rereading Moomins the other day and the Snork maiden kept asking Moomitroll to pretend that he kidnapped her. Then I saw this strip:




All this upset me greatly when I automatically placed it in /pol/ context.

Intuition tells me that the best solution to this is to stab people but my mom didn't raise me that way, which is again disturbing if you place it in a /pol/ context.

Then again there's the Moominmamma and the completely psychopathic Little My (Too Ticky is probably a lesbian, I think she is based on Tuve's lesbian lover or something, I mean she gives me a butch lesbian vibe with her pretend-stoicism and "haha lets send the skiing hemule to the mountains so he falls off a cliff" plan), evidently there are sane females in the Moominvalley so Moomintroll should just stop dating dumb staceys. And Mymbles suck anyway.

Supreme court killed liberals

The cartoon was shit, it just used Moomin characters for a generic children show. Moomin books are pretty good, the Comet book is vividly apocalyptic and the Winter book is pretty nice too. It baffles me that many people actually didn't read the books, I thought it's classic for all ages, like the Hobbit or someshit. Definitely miles better than Harry Potter too.

DemonFiren wrote:it might be harmful, depending on your definition of violence
verbal abuse does exist, the challenge lies in separating bitches who need to grow a pair from people who've been legitimately shat on and deserve protection

Nobody deserves protection, protection by lawful policy is a privilege.

A chimpanzee failed to apply for human rights which would have protected its liberties. Human rights are the most detracted form of paint with the same brush protections we can offer, which is almost satirical given that a chimpanzee we share a significant amount of DNA but remain starkly different would also be 'human' protected by all or with special exemption, partial human liberties

People have lived without rights for centuries, in Rome it was apply for nationalistic roman citizenship or get stuffed when some centurions chase after you with dogs, nets and gladius's to be a slave. Much of the western world has priviledge to have their right to free speech, partaking in this discussion right now, compared to some places like North Korea who beat a American comatose for trying to steal a propaganda poster essentially dehumanized him with torture to join the rest of the population in that country in concentration camps undergoing not dissimilar de-humanizing treatment.

ITT: people confusing the meaning of criticism with plain hate


saying that all followers of islam are a bunch of goat fucker child molesters is hate speech. It is not a form of criticism, you are not advancing any social order by shouting that at any brown person you see. That is not something you can say on a public forum and I am happy that it is that way.

You are allowed to say that muslim has a fundamentalism problem and not get arrested. That's criticism. Nobody is going to put you in prison for saying that. That's not what the anti-hate speech law is for.

'Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

'Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

'No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.'

t. Winston Churchill

It shouldn't be a crime to be pissed that another truck of peace kills a dozen people in the British city of your choice, and to vent online about it about how EVERY ATTACK seems to just so happen come from the same clans of goatfuckers.

How dare people get mad that their friends, family and fellow countrymen are dropping dead while the government is more concerned with policing mean words on twitter then the Muslims that are killing people on the regular.

Ah yes that argument.

Unfortunately that's not how departments work. That is like saying "Why is the police chasing shoplifters when there's murderers out there!!!" We're a complex society, we can do both without compromising the other. Get outta here with that weak ass shit.

Any resources allocated by any police department to arrest people over twitter comments is time not spent catching people doing actually harmful crimes

You can't both be patroling the streets and also scanning reports that someone called someone a nigger on twitter

Plus, from what I've heard the police departments in Britain are actually rather underfunded. Dunno if that's true, but still.

Except it's not.

Who the fuck patrols the streets nowadays. What is this fucking 1866.

Officer John works for the police department. So does Officer Jane.

Officer Jane works the street catching real criminals.

Officer John wastes taxpayer money by looking on the internet and arresting people for saying mean things.

Officer John could work the street catching actual criminals.

Officer John and Jane can be normal officers. The cyber department (which has a separate budget from the patrol officers) hires Marc who is part of the cyber division and can patrol the internet for hate speech.

Oh look, not only have you created more jobs, but now you can do both!

Jesus Christ this isn't fucking black and white. It's the 21st century buddy, majority of police departments have a cyber division anyway. Pretty sure the people that are behind prosecuting hate speech online is the cyber division of Scotland Yard and I'm 90% sure that it's not a case of patrolling the internet to find crimes but a report system. Just like policing nowadays. Nobody fucking goes on the beat nowadays don't be stupid lmao.

ColonicAcid wrote:ITT: people confusing the meaning of criticism with plain hate


saying that all followers of islam are a bunch of goat fucker child molesters is hate speech. It is not a form of criticism, you are not advancing any social order by shouting that at any brown person you see. That is not something you can say on a public forum and I am happy that it is that way.

You are allowed to say that muslim has a fundamentalism problem and not get arrested. That's criticism. Nobody is going to put you in prison for saying that. That's not what the anti-hate speech law is for.

That's bullshit and you know it. Islam is a terrible religion and anyone who follows it is a violent idiot, ignorant, or part of one of many subsects that are considered highly heretical by the majority.
I prefer the latter two, and indeed there are a fair amount of them ignorant. Which is fine, really. As long as they are good people.

You could just read their book (Or a translation) and find out it's not that muslims have a fundamentalism problem, it's that islam and muslims as a whole ARE the fundamentalism problem. Their religion is set up to encourage violence, hatred and negativity, while stopping any chance at science and humanism.
But, if you say that in public, this gets calls of "hate speech" because it hurts people's feelings.
And that is exactly why 'hate speech' laws don't fit in any civilised society. People need to be told these things because it will lead them to introspection on what they believe, and whether or not it is right to change their ways. But instead of that, they get to just go "Hate speech lalalalalala I can't hear you" and have people who say anything they dislike fined or worse.

And you know what else?
Governments go along with it, politicians are fine with it, and police have to betray their country on a practically daily basis. Immigrants are a protected and privileged class compared to the natives, and it is entirely normal and logical that this pisses natives off, that they speak out against this, and indeed, that they will hate these immigrants for coming to their country, bringing all the negatives from immigration with them AND then complaining that the place they immigrated to is terrible and has to change to fit their backwards goatfucking culture beliefs.
It is not hate speech to say that they come from a culture where fucking a goat is perfectly fine and acceptable. It's just the truth and facts of life. And because we (Western society) find sex with goats to be disgusting and slightly humorous we will indeed refer to them as goatfuckers if we are speaking negatively of them.
Not all muslims fuck goats. But the majority of them are from cultures where sex with goats is accepted as just a thing men do sometimes. In that way it's inaccurate to refer to all muslims as goatfuckers, but it is accurate to refer to first generation arabs, afghans or pakistanis as goatfuckers. Not that the first generation immigrants are the ones causing much trouble either, that's mostly the second generation and on, so for them the label of 'goatfucker' is not accurate either

Hope you enjoyed this text diarrhea

ColonicAcid wrote:Officer John and Jane can be normal officers. The cyber department (which has a separate budget from the patrol officers) hires Marc who is part of the cyber division and can patrol the internet for hate speech.

Oh look, not only have you created more jobs, but now you can do both!

Jesus Christ this isn't fucking black and white. It's the 21st century buddy, majority of police departments have a cyber division anyway. Pretty sure the people that are behind prosecuting hate speech online is the cyber division of Scotland Yard and I'm 90% sure that it's not a case of patrolling the internet to find crimes but a report system. Just like policing nowadays. Nobody fucking goes on the beat nowadays don't be stupid lmao.

Marc is a drain on public funds and should be canned to make way for tax cuts and so he can go out and get a real job providing a service society actually needs. Like literally anything else.

ShadowDimentio wrote:Protesting a funeral is distasteful but not a crime in any way, nor does it infringe on anyone's rights (provided it's kept civil) and isn't a crime. Threatening to kill someone, let alone the president, ostensibly the most powerful man on earth, is a VERY big crime.

The US has always erred on the side of freedom regarding speech, and basically unless you're straight up threatening someone by name then nobody can really do anything to you legally. Socially certainly, but not legally.

I'm not arguing what is a crime or what isn't. I'm just saying that protesting at a funeral is pretty shitty but is still protected by free speech but threatening the president (or pretending to threaten the president) isn't protected by free speech. Also there is libel laws and other things ect ect. The American idea of free speech isn't really totally free and has its limitations. We do error on the side of caution but if you really think about things there are consequences to what you say even if there isn't specific laws against it.

Regardless there are people (Secret service) who patrol the internet and look for hate speech against the president (and investigate said hate speech dependant on how intense it is). If someone says online "I like to kill niggers" or "I want to kill the president" they are both investigated.

Also hi secret service thank you for your duty sorry I was using a example please don't come to my house.

Council estate board neglect has already killed more British people than ISIS ever managed to. Turns out you don't need bombs or even vans, you just need to be bad at frying in a place where covering buildings in ultra-flammable Chinese cladding raises property values.

CosmicScientist wrote:but at least the Victorian era was when we started to put men and women in separate prisons.

Before that it was just called a dungeon wasn't it

It should be enlightening to realise that pretty much every societal change in Britain since the Victorian era was done utterly begrudgingly.

ColonicAcid wrote:Officer John and Jane can be normal officers. The cyber department (which has a separate budget from the patrol officers) hires Marc who is part of the cyber division and can patrol the internet for hate speech.

Oh look, not only have you created more jobs, but now you can do both!

Jesus Christ this isn't fucking black and white. It's the 21st century buddy, majority of police departments have a cyber division anyway. Pretty sure the people that are behind prosecuting hate speech online is the cyber division of Scotland Yard and I'm 90% sure that it's not a case of patrolling the internet to find crimes but a report system. Just like policing nowadays. Nobody fucking goes on the beat nowadays don't be stupid lmao.

Damn, we could create infinite jobs this way.

Finally the economy is saved.

so long as there's an infinite number of qualified people and the infrastructure and money to support them, sure

leibniz wrote:

ColonicAcid wrote:Officer John and Jane can be normal officers. The cyber department (which has a separate budget from the patrol officers) hires Marc who is part of the cyber division and can patrol the internet for hate speech.

Oh look, not only have you created more jobs, but now you can do both!

Jesus Christ this isn't fucking black and white. It's the 21st century buddy, majority of police departments have a cyber division anyway. Pretty sure the people that are behind prosecuting hate speech online is the cyber division of Scotland Yard and I'm 90% sure that it's not a case of patrolling the internet to find crimes but a report system. Just like policing nowadays. Nobody fucking goes on the beat nowadays don't be stupid lmao.

Damn, we could create infinite jobs this way.

Finally the economy is saved.

ahaha epic nice one my man

i too can completely miss the point and strawman!!!!

Now maybe I'm just a simple racist, but maybe the cyber crimes division should spend their time investigating all the indian vishing scams and ruskie ransomware attacks instead of someone calling someone a paki cunt on twatter?

ColonicAcid wrote:

leibniz wrote:

ColonicAcid wrote:Officer John and Jane can be normal officers. The cyber department (which has a separate budget from the patrol officers) hires Marc who is part of the cyber division and can patrol the internet for hate speech.

Oh look, not only have you created more jobs, but now you can do both!

Jesus Christ this isn't fucking black and white. It's the 21st century buddy, majority of police departments have a cyber division anyway. Pretty sure the people that are behind prosecuting hate speech online is the cyber division of Scotland Yard and I'm 90% sure that it's not a case of patrolling the internet to find crimes but a report system. Just like policing nowadays. Nobody fucking goes on the beat nowadays don't be stupid lmao.

Damn, we could create infinite jobs this way.

Finally the economy is saved.

ahaha epic nice one my man

i too can completely miss the point and strawman!!!!

You deserve to get memed when you make a meme argument

DemonFiren wrote:so long as there's an infinite number of qualified people and the infrastructure and money to support them, sure

This is how government works though
When the essential services are done, they start reducing the unemployment number by just giving nothing-jobs to vast amounts of people.
Just so some politician can claim he helped reduce unemployment and win votes

At zero hours contracts naturally so those people can no longer claim unemployment even though they're earning less than their expenses.