 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Broadcasters and other media outlets in the USA continue to have their wings clipped, with many other people being cancelled or fired from their jobs for daring to criticise deceased 'Trump Youth' leader Charlie Kirk. US talk show host Jimmy Kimmel has had his programme on ABC (Disney owned), pulled over "offensive and insensitive" comments about Charlie Kirk, a move welcomed by President Donald Trump. Mr Kimmel used his show on Monday night to accuse Mr Trump and his allies of capitalising on the conservative influencer's assassination last week. The comedian said: "The Maga Gang are desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." Speaking on Mr Trump, he added: "This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he calls a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish." Mr Kimmel also said that "many in MAGA land are working very hard to capitalise on the murder of Charlie Kirk"." There are other stations that have their shows cancelled because of Trump and his band of happy morons. Yet people over here that follow him thinking they have no free speech. Total irony. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump scares corporations,especially the media. " The USA is rapidly becoming more & more like China, Russia and Korea, with no room for healthy criticism or dissenters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Broadcasters and other media outlets in the USA continue to have their wings clipped, with many other people being cancelled or fired from their jobs for daring to criticise deceased 'Trump Youth' leader Charlie Kirk. US talk show host Jimmy Kimmel has had his programme on ABC (Disney owned), pulled over "offensive and insensitive" comments about Charlie Kirk, a move welcomed by President Donald Trump. Mr Kimmel used his show on Monday night to accuse Mr Trump and his allies of capitalising on the conservative influencer's assassination last week. The comedian said: "The Maga Gang are desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." Speaking on Mr Trump, he added: "This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he calls a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish." Mr Kimmel also said that "many in MAGA land are working very hard to capitalise on the murder of Charlie Kirk". There are other stations that have their shows cancelled because of Trump and his band of happy morons. Yet people over here that follow him thinking they have no free speech. Total irony." Absolutely, we saw Tommy Robinson thanking Elon Musk at the weekend for reinstating his X account, yet this sort of shit is going on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Those who shout loudest for freedom of speech appear to be those trying to prevent it. I guess it’s freedom but only if you agree to what they say. " Well...the cancel culture boot is on the other foot now. I don't really approve but hey there's been plenty of shit the last 5 years so they're just getting some back. Suck it all up... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a predictable reaction to the last few years' diversity propaganda and positive discrimination. Flooded with that lunacy, the dam's broken on that one; we can only hope the water level returns to normal. It could take a while. RIP Taking The Knee, and good riddance." ...a fox panel member (Brian kilmeade) called for the involuntary lethal injection of homeless people on the "fox and friends " show...not a peep from trumpland | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A handful of sick individuals have lost their jobs not for criticising Charlie Kirk or having a different opinion but for celebrating his death None have been put in Jail for any of these hate crimes, speeches or social media posts ……. as commonly happens in the U.K. " They wouldn't be jailed in the UK because what you've described isn't an offence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a predictable reaction to the last few years' diversity propaganda and positive discrimination. Flooded with that lunacy, the dam's broken on that one; we can only hope the water level returns to normal. It could take a while. RIP Taking The Knee, and good riddance." This, from a man in women's clothes?Lmao. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A handful of sick individuals have lost their jobs not for criticising Charlie Kirk or having a different opinion but for celebrating his death None have been put in Jail for any of these hate crimes, speeches or social media posts ……. as commonly happens in the U.K. They wouldn't be jailed in the UK because what you've described isn't an offence." I wonder if Lucy Connolly would agree with you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A handful of sick individuals have lost their jobs not for criticising Charlie Kirk or having a different opinion but for celebrating his death None have been put in Jail for any of these hate crimes, speeches or social media posts ……. as commonly happens in the U.K. They wouldn't be jailed in the UK because what you've described isn't an offence. I wonder if Lucy Connolly would agree with you? " The 'people who celebrated Charlie Kirk's death', haven't actually committed a crime, unlike Lucy Connelly. I'm not shedding any tears over him myself, either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As long as you don't say anything about the exalted "Kirk". I'm not having anything bad said about James T. (And I have read Tek Wars)" "KHAAAN!" (He was right too ....Fuckin awful mayor) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As long as you don't say anything about the exalted "Kirk". I'm not having anything bad said about James T. (And I have read Tek Wars) "KHAAAN!" (He was right too ....Fuckin awful mayor)" Thats why he keeps getting voted back in i guests.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As long as you don't say anything about the exalted "Kirk". I'm not having anything bad said about James T. (And I have read Tek Wars) "KHAAAN!" (He was right too ....Fuckin awful mayor) Thats why he keeps getting voted back in i guests.. " He Khan lose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As long as you don't say anything about the exalted "Kirk". I'm not having anything bad said about James T. (And I have read Tek Wars) "KHAAAN!" (He was right too ....Fuckin awful mayor) Thats why he keeps getting voted back in i guests.. " Muck like Klingons - Shit sticks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The ratings for these late night chat shows in US have been falling for a few years. CBS have already canx Stephen Colbert. I think ABC maybe using this issue to dump Kimmel and can use the Charlie Kirk issue to do something they were planning to do anyway." It clearly isn't that, it's another political move to stifle criticism: 'ABC axed the show after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) headed by a Trump appointee, threatened regulatory action - raising concerns the Trump administration is curtailing the free speech of its critics. Trump spoke about the issue to reporters aboard Air Force One on Thursday while returning from a state visit to the UK. "I have read some place that the networks were 97% against me, again, 97% negative, and yet I won and easily [in last year's election]," the president said. "They give me only bad publicity [and] press. I mean, they're getting a licence. I would think maybe their licence should be taken away." The FCC's chair, Brendan Carr accused Kimmel of "the sickest conduct possible" and said firms like the Disney-owned ABC could "find ways to change conduct and take action... or there's going to be additional work for the FCC". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wish folk would stop falling into the Trump trap. Don't waste time commenting on what he says (which is usually balderdash) but on what he actually does In other words don't play the man, play the ball" 100% correct | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A handful of sick individuals have lost their jobs not for criticising Charlie Kirk or having a different opinion but for celebrating his death " Perhaps The individual in op was dropped because the network was threatened with loosing FCC licence. A threat made by a trump appointed head of bureau. He was insensitive,perhaps , he didn't "celebrate" the murder. He did viciously lampoon Trump and his administrations double standards. " None have been put in Jail .... as commonly happens in the U.K. " Sorry I think your talking tosh on this one. Numbers do not bear this out. With the identification of a fictional group "antifa" as a terrorist organisation, he can now essentially arrest anyone he wants. It's McCarthyism all over again. We are not at that level yet. But we are heading there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Censorship or just common decency. We may be allowed to rejoice at the deaths of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. but common decency would suggest we kept shtum about the death of someone we merely disagree with." Something I’ve been thinking about your list above (and I’d add Putin to the list as well). We all know and realise what monsters they were and with hindsight know that the world is a better off place without them (except for Putin and we would probably be better off without him as well). However if they had been killed at the start of their murderous reign (when we could see where they were heading but hadn’t killed 1000’s or 1000000’s yet) would we still feel the same about their demise and would we be justified in those feelings? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Censorship or just common decency. We may be allowed to rejoice at the deaths of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. but common decency would suggest we kept shtum about the death of someone we merely disagree with." So how many people have to die before we are allowed to be glad someone is gone? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Censorship or just common decency. We may be allowed to rejoice at the deaths of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. but common decency would suggest we kept shtum about the death of someone we merely disagree with. So how many people have to die before we are allowed to be glad someone is gone?" Weird question | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Censorship or just common decency. We may be allowed to rejoice at the deaths of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. but common decency would suggest we kept shtum about the death of someone we merely disagree with. So how many people have to die before we are allowed to be glad someone is gone? Weird question" Not really, you allow us to rejoice at Pol Pot, but not someone else, what’s the difference that makes Pol Pot ok to rejoice over? At what point is it not a mere disagreement anymore? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Censorship or just common decency. We may be allowed to rejoice at the deaths of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. but common decency would suggest we kept shtum about the death of someone we merely disagree with. So how many people have to die before we are allowed to be glad someone is gone? Weird question Not really, you allow us to rejoice at Pol Pot, but not someone else, what’s the difference that makes Pol Pot ok to rejoice over? At what point is it not a mere disagreement anymore? " Don't get your 'reasoning' at all. Pol Pot, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc, caused or ordered the deaths and suffering of thousands if not millions. The likes of Charlie Kirk didn't kill anyone. You may disagree 100% with what he said but they were words not actions. You may be pleased at his demise. That's your personal prerogative. Not something to be shouted from the rooftops. Methinks you are trying to create an argument for the sake of it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Censorship or just common decency. We may be allowed to rejoice at the deaths of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. but common decency would suggest we kept shtum about the death of someone we merely disagree with. So how many people have to die before we are allowed to be glad someone is gone? Weird question Not really, you allow us to rejoice at Pol Pot, but not someone else, what’s the difference that makes Pol Pot ok to rejoice over? At what point is it not a mere disagreement anymore? Don't get your 'reasoning' at all. Pol Pot, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc, caused or ordered the deaths and suffering of thousands if not millions. The likes of Charlie Kirk didn't kill anyone. You may disagree 100% with what he said but they were words not actions. You may be pleased at his demise. That's your personal prerogative. Not something to be shouted from the rooftops. Methinks you are trying to create an argument for the sake of it." So, absolutely agree with your point and now it’s curious to consider how many deaths needs to be caused before it’s ok to be glad they are gone. You have set a line that there are some folks who are ok to celebrate dying and some it isn’t. The root cause is that we disagree with them and their methods. So I’m curious to know where you draw the line. I don’t want an argument, I want a discussion because your point is relatable and interesting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is not about free speech. It's about consequences. Sure you can go online and try to justify or celebrate someone's death but this kind of free speech has consequences. I don't want to have anything to do with company that allows its employees to be so openly hateful and mock the assassination of kirk. Thse people are supposed to represent their company's core values and if these companies sit back and allow their employees to be so hatefull online then what does that say about the company values? The leftist have been using this playbook since they termed "cancel culture" and weaponised it to remove anyone that disagreed with them. You only have to look at how they destroyed Graham Linehans career for defending women and speaking facts and truths. Well now it's come back to bite them in the arse and suddenly "oh my free speech is being removed, it's a far right thing and political point scoring" No, they still have free speech, but some speech had consequences and if they are mocking and celebraing someone death then they just show a complete lack of human decency. Do you really want these people in a position of responsibility when you know they want you dead just for having a difference of opinion? Nobody should be jailed by a government for free speech however as an employer they have the responsibility to protet their customers." Well said | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Broadcasters and other media outlets in the USA continue to have their wings clipped, with many other people being cancelled or fired from their jobs for daring to criticise deceased 'Trump Youth' leader Charlie Kirk. US talk show host Jimmy Kimmel has had his programme on ABC (Disney owned), pulled over "offensive and insensitive" comments about Charlie Kirk, a move welcomed by President Donald Trump. Mr Kimmel used his show on Monday night to accuse Mr Trump and his allies of capitalising on the conservative influencer's assassination last week. The comedian said: "The Maga Gang are desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." Speaking on Mr Trump, he added: "This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he calls a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish." Mr Kimmel also said that "many in MAGA land are working very hard to capitalise on the murder of Charlie Kirk"." Kimmel broke the FCC broadcasting rules and regulations. Something he's done many times, this was too far. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump scares corporations,especially the media. The USA is rapidly becoming more & more like China, Russia and Korea, with no room for healthy criticism or dissenters." It's not though. Since Trump was elected he's done everything he can to protect free speech in the USA. Foe one hes defunding colleges that don't protect free speech. If anything the UK is becoming more like China and Russia. Using my previous example the Met poloce sent 5 armed police to pick up Grahem Linham over a tweet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is not about free speech. It's about consequences. Sure you can go online and try to justify or celebrate someone's death but this kind of free speech has consequences. I don't want to have anything to do with company that allows its employees to be so openly hateful and mock the assassination of kirk. Thse people are supposed to represent their company's core values and if these companies sit back and allow their employees to be so hatefull online then what does that say about the company values? The leftist have been using this playbook since they termed "cancel culture" and weaponised it to remove anyone that disagreed with them. You only have to look at how they destroyed Graham Linehans career for defending women and speaking facts and truths. Well now it's come back to bite them in the arse and suddenly "oh my free speech is being removed, it's a far right thing and political point scoring" No, they still have free speech, but some speech had consequences and if they are mocking and celebraing someone death then they just show a complete lack of human decency. Do you really want these people in a position of responsibility when you know they want you dead just for having a difference of opinion? Nobody should be jailed by a government for free speech however as an employer they have the responsibility to protet their customers." Linehan has regularly shown a lack of decency in how he talks to and about people, but you just view that as truth telling... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Censorship or just common decency. We may be allowed to rejoice at the deaths of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. but common decency would suggest we kept shtum about the death of someone we merely disagree with. So how many people have to die before we are allowed to be glad someone is gone? Weird question" Not really, if you look at history, Hitlers first concentration camp was for people who disagreed with him, and for things like trade unionists etc. If someone had managed to do away with him then would people have been justified at being happy that he was gone - remember WW2 and the Holocaust hadn’t happened then. People only saw what they wanted to see (or were manipulated into seeing) in a lot of cases. At what point is it OK to celebrate their death - remember when Hitler killed himself people were overjoyed that he was dead. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump scares corporations,especially the media. The USA is rapidly becoming more & more like China, Russia and Korea, with no room for healthy criticism or dissenters. It's not though. Since Trump was elected he's done everything he can to protect free speech in the USA. Foe one hes defunding colleges that don't protect free speech. If anything the UK is becoming more like China and Russia. Using my previous example the Met poloce sent 5 armed police to pick up Grahem Linham over a tweet." Actually just today he has suggested that broadcasters lose their licenses if they have programs that disagree with him - how is that protecting “free speech”? Also what is “free speech” because there are other laws that modify what you can and cannot say - example the Macrons taking a liable case about accusations that his wife was born a man. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Linehans arrest was also related to his ongoing harassment charges. He wasn't just picked up for a substack article, its that in a combination with his real world harassment of people involving smashing up their phones." One Tweet where he stated " if a "trans-identified male" is in a female-only space he is committing a "violent, abusive act". Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails punch him in the balls". He's a comedy writer. He was pointing out that biolocial women are in general shorter than biological men. Another post featured a photo of trans-rights protesters with the comment "a photo you can smell". In a third post, he commented on the protesters by saying "I hate them" and added an expletive. To be fair he's been target by these people for many years, I think he has a right to be angry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cancel Culture - Bad Culpability Culture - Good If you're a chat show host earning $16 million per year ... You might want to err on the side of caution when shouting your mouth off and twisting the truth for cheap laughs. I guess he's not laughing now eh " Why does what you earn mean you should be sacked for offending a leader? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cancel Culture - Bad Culpability Culture - Good If you're a chat show host earning $16 million per year ... You might want to err on the side of caution when shouting your mouth off and twisting the truth for cheap laughs. I guess he's not laughing now eh Why does what you earn mean you should be sacked for offending a leader?" He has been suspended for damaging the revenue stream of his employers ABC. Nothing to do with 'offending a leader' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump scares corporations,especially the media. The USA is rapidly becoming more & more like China, Russia and Korea, with no room for healthy criticism or dissenters. It's not though. Since Trump was elected he's done everything he can to protect free speech in the USA. Foe one hes defunding colleges that don't protect free speech. If anything the UK is becoming more like China and Russia. Using my previous example the Met poloce sent 5 armed police to pick up Grahem Linham over a tweet. Actually just today he has suggested that broadcasters lose their licenses if they have programs that disagree with him - how is that protecting “free speech”? Also what is “free speech” because there are other laws that modify what you can and cannot say - example the Macrons taking a liable case about accusations that his wife was born a man." "just today he has suggested that broadcasters lose their licenses if they have programs that disagree with him" I'd like to see that, maybe you can post a link. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump scares corporations,especially the media. The USA is rapidly becoming more & more like China, Russia and Korea, with no room for healthy criticism or dissenters. It's not though. Since Trump was elected he's done everything he can to protect free speech in the USA. Foe one hes defunding colleges that don't protect free speech. If anything the UK is becoming more like China and Russia. Using my previous example the Met poloce sent 5 armed police to pick up Grahem Linham over a tweet. Actually just today he has suggested that broadcasters lose their licenses if they have programs that disagree with him - how is that protecting “free speech”? Also what is “free speech” because there are other laws that modify what you can and cannot say - example the Macrons taking a liable case about accusations that his wife was born a man. "just today he has suggested that broadcasters lose their licenses if they have programs that disagree with him" I'd like to see that, maybe you can post a link." Here you go. It was a childishly simple search. Also in the Mail, if that's your bag... https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/world/all-they-do-is-hit-trump-president-suggests-networks-should-have-licenses-taken-away-for-being-too-critical/ar-AA1MQIWy Trumps says "maybe", which means only that he'll confirm that he can get round US law and make quite sure MAGA llons like it before he commits himself. Read "Done deal." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cancel Culture - Bad Culpability Culture - Good If you're a chat show host earning $16 million per year ... You might want to err on the side of caution when shouting your mouth off and twisting the truth for cheap laughs. I guess he's not laughing now eh Why does what you earn mean you should be sacked for offending a leader? He has been suspended for damaging the revenue stream of his employers ABC. Nothing to do with 'offending a leader'" Are you honestly that naive? I seriously doubt it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump scares corporations,especially the media. The USA is rapidly becoming more & more like China, Russia and Korea, with no room for healthy criticism or dissenters. It's not though. Since Trump was elected he's done everything he can to protect free speech in the USA. Foe one hes defunding colleges that don't protect free speech. If anything the UK is becoming more like China and Russia. Using my previous example the Met poloce sent 5 armed police to pick up Grahem Linham over a tweet. Actually just today he has suggested that broadcasters lose their licenses if they have programs that disagree with him - how is that protecting “free speech”? Also what is “free speech” because there are other laws that modify what you can and cannot say - example the Macrons taking a liable case about accusations that his wife was born a man. "just today he has suggested that broadcasters lose their licenses if they have programs that disagree with him" I'd like to see that, maybe you can post a link. Here you go. It was a childishly simple search. Also in the Mail, if that's your bag... https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/world/all-they-do-is-hit-trump-president-suggests-networks-should-have-licenses-taken-away-for-being-too-critical/ar-AA1MQIWy Trumps says "maybe", which means only that he'll confirm that he can get round US law and make quite sure MAGA llons like it before he commits himself. Read "Done deal."" "childish"? If you make a claim that "he said" then the onus is on yourself to provide the exact reference. "President suggests networks should have licenses ‘taken away’ for being too critical" "Networks whose programming is largely anti-Trump should have their government-approved broadcasting license “taken away,” President Trump suggested, in comments that alarmed free expression advocates." I can see the argument here. If the output from a "government aporoved network" is overly critical/negative towards it's country's President when news coverage should be ballanced. News and TV networks are supposed to provide a ballance output and not peddle their own political beliefs on the audience. It's the reason why I stopped watching the BBC or Sky News. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""If you make a claim that "he said" then the onus is on yourself to provide the exact reference. (etcetera)" No it isn't. I was happy to supply the deficiency, so don't get antsy with me.... The quote is all over the MSM, including the sort you rely on. By your argument, Starmer (pretending for a moment that he is leftwing) has a right to shut down Fox News? Which has a licence from OFCOM, like all tv broadcasters in the UK. Agree?" Sky news operates under ofcom broadcasting regulations which require impartial, unbiased coverage. If the coverage is consistently biased or politically critical then maybe they should have the licence removed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Censorship or just common decency. We may be allowed to rejoice at the deaths of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. but common decency would suggest we kept shtum about the death of someone we merely disagree with. So how many people have to die before we are allowed to be glad someone is gone? Weird question Not really, if you look at history, Hitlers first concentration camp was for people who disagreed with him, and for things like trade unionists etc. If someone had managed to do away with him then would people have been justified at being happy that he was gone - remember WW2 and the Holocaust hadn’t happened then. People only saw what they wanted to see (or were manipulated into seeing) in a lot of cases. At what point is it OK to celebrate their death - remember when Hitler killed himself people were overjoyed that he was dead." A bit hypothetical really. Had Hitler been assassinated in say 1934, before anyone had been executed in concentration camps, there wouldn't have been much rejoicing. Certainly not outside Germany where he was hardly known at that point. What I am saying, and what some of you are not getting, is death is not something to be rejoiced over unless they were an unquestionably evil person whose actions had cause the deaths of thousands, if not millions of others. You may not like what Charlie Kirk said but he did not murder anyone. He did not have the power to do evil deeds. Quite possibly he might have gone on to be a senator or state governor but we will never know. Plus the USA being a democracy where there are limits to politicians power, he would not have become a Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot. There are a lot of politicians with whom I strongly disagree. If they died of natural causes I would not rejoice. If they were gunned down I would be outraged. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Censorship or just common decency. We may be allowed to rejoice at the deaths of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. but common decency would suggest we kept shtum about the death of someone we merely disagree with. So how many people have to die before we are allowed to be glad someone is gone? Weird question Not really, if you look at history, Hitlers first concentration camp was for people who disagreed with him, and for things like trade unionists etc. If someone had managed to do away with him then would people have been justified at being happy that he was gone - remember WW2 and the Holocaust hadn’t happened then. People only saw what they wanted to see (or were manipulated into seeing) in a lot of cases. At what point is it OK to celebrate their death - remember when Hitler killed himself people were overjoyed that he was dead. A bit hypothetical really. Had Hitler been assassinated in say 1934, before anyone had been executed in concentration camps, there wouldn't have been much rejoicing. Certainly not outside Germany where he was hardly known at that point. What I am saying, and what some of you are not getting, is death is not something to be rejoiced over unless they were an unquestionably evil person whose actions had cause the deaths of thousands, if not millions of others. You may not like what Charlie Kirk said but he did not murder anyone. He did not have the power to do evil deeds. Quite possibly he might have gone on to be a senator or state governor but we will never know. Plus the USA being a democracy where there are limits to politicians power, he would not have become a Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot. There are a lot of politicians with whom I strongly disagree. If they died of natural causes I would not rejoice. If they were gunned down I would be outraged." And if it was Putin? Bet there would be a lot of rejoicing if he was done away with. But the point I was making about Hitler was you could see the way he was going before he got power, how many lives would have been saved if one of the attempts had been successful? We can look at it now with hindsight and say yes, but if we had foresight at the time would it have been different? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump scares corporations,especially the media. The USA is rapidly becoming more & more like China, Russia and Korea, with no room for healthy criticism or dissenters." Worldwide getting worse just start of what’s to come . Think be communities develop where people buy large bits land . 20 say acre’s and have people of same ilkthinking live in communes . Be who want be with your own kind . Be it ope middx or not . Sort tribal life . In harmony . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Freedom of speech and of expression always has conditions attached. This applies in the most advanced and civilized societies, all the way down to dysfunctional shit-holes. We're all censored ... and all self-censor (Unless mentally incapable of doing so)" Are the "conditions" not getting more and more restrictive though. That's how these things work. By stealth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Censorship or just common decency. We may be allowed to rejoice at the deaths of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. but common decency would suggest we kept shtum about the death of someone we merely disagree with. So how many people have to die before we are allowed to be glad someone is gone? Weird question Not really, if you look at history, Hitlers first concentration camp was for people who disagreed with him, and for things like trade unionists etc. If someone had managed to do away with him then would people have been justified at being happy that he was gone - remember WW2 and the Holocaust hadn’t happened then. People only saw what they wanted to see (or were manipulated into seeing) in a lot of cases. At what point is it OK to celebrate their death - remember when Hitler killed himself people were overjoyed that he was dead. A bit hypothetical really. Had Hitler been assassinated in say 1934, before anyone had been executed in concentration camps, there wouldn't have been much rejoicing. Certainly not outside Germany where he was hardly known at that point. What I am saying, and what some of you are not getting, is death is not something to be rejoiced over unless they were an unquestionably evil person whose actions had cause the deaths of thousands, if not millions of others. You may not like what Charlie Kirk said but he did not murder anyone. He did not have the power to do evil deeds. Quite possibly he might have gone on to be a senator or state governor but we will never know. Plus the USA being a democracy where there are limits to politicians power, he would not have become a Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot. There are a lot of politicians with whom I strongly disagree. If they died of natural causes I would not rejoice. If they were gunned down I would be outraged." Evil is a construct borne of a failure to understand a persons motivations. Every person on earth acts logically as they see it. So to use evil as a benchmark is to draw an arbitrary line based on your own moral compass. Now this is a compass that I suspect you and I share, but we cannot pretend that it is universal as there were and are a great many people who agreed with the individuals you have named. It’s not an academic argument because it shows there are no black and white elements to this, everything is grey and we cannot pretend at having a universal truth here, and we need to accept that no matter how justified we feel, we are always going to appear evil to a group or groups of people which makes our deaths worth celebrating too. So maybe we need to be less squeamish about our basic humanity and realise that our disgust is just a different perspective, not an inherent goodness in our beliefs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Plus the USA being a democracy where there are limits to politicians power" Well the way Trump is going you could have fooled me (and probably a lot of other people as well). Trump has been trying to circumvent any control over what he can legally do, he has stacked the Supreme Court with his own cronies, he sacks anyone who won’t do what he wants and replaces them with his own cronies. He should have been impeached for inciting the riot after losing the election at the end of his first term, as well as trying to “fix” results in that election. Now he is threatening the broadcast media if they disagree with him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Freedom of speech and of expression always has conditions attached. This applies in the most advanced and civilized societies, all the way down to dysfunctional shit-holes. We're all censored ... and all self-censor (Unless mentally incapable of doing so) Are the "conditions" not getting more and more restrictive though. That's how these things work. By stealth." The conditions are always changing ... some things loosen up ... others tighten. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Freedom of speech and of expression always has conditions attached. This applies in the most advanced and civilized societies, all the way down to dysfunctional shit-holes. We're all censored ... and all self-censor (Unless mentally incapable of doing so) Are the "conditions" not getting more and more restrictive though. That's how these things work. By stealth. The conditions are always changing ... some things loosen up ... others tighten. " I don't see anything loosening. I do like your profile pic though, some things are better with a slightly tight restriction! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""If you make a claim that "he said" then the onus is on yourself to provide the exact reference. (etcetera)" No it isn't. I was happy to supply the deficiency, so don't get antsy with me.... The quote is all over the MSM, including the sort you rely on. By your argument, Starmer (pretending for a moment that he is leftwing) has a right to shut down Fox News? Which has a licence from OFCOM, like all tv broadcasters in the UK. Agree? Sky news operates under ofcom broadcasting regulations which require impartial, unbiased coverage. If the coverage is consistently biased or politically critical then maybe they should have the licence removed." My point was of course hypothetical. Yes, currently, OFCOM sets limits to what may be expressed. And I'm glad you approve. But OFCOM is itself pretty impartial. To date. It even allows GBNews. Now, to reiterate my point, what if the government decides to move the goalposts to favour ONLY one side of the political spectrum? And it's not your side? This is what- https://kdsherpa.substack.com/p/how-the-us-rightwing-is-taking-over -to get the message pretend its your lot who are getting shafted here. Too hard? That is the main problem, of course. No empathy anywhere. https://kdsherpa.substack.com/p/how-the-us-rightwing-is-taking-over | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Freedom of speech and of expression always has conditions attached. This applies in the most advanced and civilized societies, all the way down to dysfunctional shit-holes. We're all censored ... and all self-censor (Unless mentally incapable of doing so) Are the "conditions" not getting more and more restrictive though. That's how these things work. By stealth." I'm not sure Trump is capable of stealth, he's a bully and his commands are being put into place in plain sight. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
