El Oh El

[IrishGirl]

Were those enough citations?  Because you're from the UK, no?  How does a poor informed half American follow UK news closer than someone that actually lives there?  Unless of course I'm NOT just getting my news from ONE side.

[IdleBoast]

Hmmm... in your first mention you neglected to mention that the "dearly departed's favourite lyrics" included racist language.

[psiberzerker]

Were those enough citations? 

I can't give you another Woo!  Yet, but I would.  (It hasn't been 24 hours.)  Nicely done.

[Jed_]

There’s nothing El Oh El about this ‘moron’ as Miss B accurately called him.

While this particular politician is second only to the orange mushroom dicked clown in being reprehensible, let him and his wife eat in peace.

And my Irish slut, despite the press being given these self-defeating morons, they are still a very small minority.  Try and direct your ire specifically to them and those that actually post this was an El Oh El moment and not paint everyone on the left as condoning it.  We obviously don’t.  I think you’re correct that the condemnation is too little and too late, but it’s there and building in strength.  Try and acknowledge that.  I’ll try and be in chat later.

[psiberzerker]

Lucifer Our Lord?

#RiseOurFatherLucifer!

[psiberzerker]

Somebody call the Language Police!

At least it's not America, where he might be accidentally executed, instead of arrested.

This Song  The racist remark is the only thing they found offensive?  I mean.  Damn!

He repeatedly called himself that epithet.  "I'm a ...  N____."  Obviously, not offending himself.  Not to mention graphic depiction of drugs, and gun violence, (Straight up murder, in public) but he calls himself an N word.  Let's go ahead, and censor him for that, arrest people for sharing his music, because it's "Racist."  Note, Youtube has a new policy about posters producing content that encourages gun sales.  That's on Youtube.

[IdleBoast]

Do you believe the criminal case was appropriate based on the information supplied in those articles?

Based on the law as it is written, and on the fact that a jury came to a verdict, then "yes".

My personal opinion; I would never use that language, even in jest, but would have reported the post to the site administrators, not the police.

Caveat; if the language was used with clear intent to offend a specific individual, and the site did not enforce their own rules in the matter, I would consider reporting it to the police.

[IdleBoast]

Based on the law as it is written, and on the fact that a jury came to a verdict, then "yes".

My personal opinion; I would never use that language, even in jest, but would have reported the post to the site administrators, not the police.

Caveat; if the language was used with clear intent to offend a specific individual, and the site did not enforce their own rules in the matter, I would consider reporting it to the police.

Very disappointing that a moderator here would have that attitude to speech.

1. I clearly said personal opinion. Some of us are able to compartmentalise our roles and positions as required. 

2. There is a distinction between free speech and personal attacks.

3. Would you try to restrict my freedom to express my disapproval of another's opinion?  You have a right to express yourself, but you do not have a right to be listened to, nor do you even have a right to a platform at anybody else's expense.

[psiberzerker]

I just find it kind of sad that we are, as a culture becoming more concerned about language, and less concerned about outright violence.  When I was younger, it was because violence was glorified, while sex was vilified, but calling a black man "Racist" for writing "I'm a rich N*****" and not for depicting public murder for a gold chain to buy more pills is pretty damned symbolic of what's wrong with our culture.

[MissBarbara]

Based on the law as it is written, and on the fact that a jury came to a verdict, then "yes".

My personal opinion; I would never use that language, even in jest, but would have reported the post to the site administrators, not the police.

Caveat; if the language was used with clear intent to offend a specific individual, and the site did not enforce their own rules in the matter, I would consider reporting it to the police.

Very disappointing that a moderator here would have that attitude to speech.

1. I clearly said personal opinion. Some of us are able to compartmentalise our roles and positions as required. 

2. There is a distinction between free speech and personal attacks.

3. Would you try to restrict my freedom to express my disapproval of another's opinion?  You have a right to express yourself, but you do not have a right to be listened to, nor do you even have a right to a platform at anybody else's expense.

Unless I'm missing something, I find it very puzzling that you chose to explain a U.K. criminal case by citing U.S. Constitutional law.

Regardless, since you opened the door, in the U.S. personal attacks, assuming they're only verbal, are protected by U.S. law. More to the point, you specifically mentioned that were this to happen on KB, you "would consider reporting it to the police." Perhaps the police in the U.K. would respond, but in the U.S. they'd either laugh at you, or take the time for a brief civics lesson. Getting "banned from an internet community" is one thing; being arrested is quite another.

[psiberzerker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom

[IdleBoast]

There is no specific right to free speech in UK law*; I was talking to an American, on an American website, about his attempt to shut down my position because of some idea that there is a prescribed opinion that must be held by all moderators.




*We subscribe to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: Article 19 is similar to your 1st Amendment:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

[IdleBoast]

Oh, pay attention, GB;

I do support free speech. At no point did I object to it.

I also follow the law, and object to people being deliberately disrespectful with the intent to cause hurt, which is why I spend so little time on 1408.

You, however, are, again, objecting to me holding an opinion to which you do not subscribe.

Feel free to highlight any occasion when I have restricted anybody's "right" to freedom of expression?

[RopeFiend]

And you're entirely welcome to any opinion that tickles you.  It doesn't even have to make any sense whatsoever: we'll support it (and lambaste it in 1408 at will).  


One of the severely-disturbed ultra-cons at work firmly believes that the fires in California were set on purpose so that the government can seize the lands under Eminent Domain.  Bless her heart, she just doesn't have a fucking clue whatsoever, does she?  I guess too much of that shit is bad for your mental health.

Needless to say, I don't have anything to say to her as it'll just fire off a shitstorm of improbable impossibilities.  She's WELL past the point where common sense kicks in.

[Lois]

Yeah, and others (like Trump) are blaming California's mismanagement of forests, although the forests affected are under the jusristiction of the Department of the Interior as they are National Forests.  And of course two of the current fires are primarily centered in suburban areas, not forests at all.

[Athos_131]

Though I often agree with both you and Athos, in this instance I completely disagree.

You're right, there was no violence whatsoever. More to the point, virtually everyone in the video objects to the protestor.

Still, loudly confronting confronting a politician angrily and vituperation when he's out for a quiet dinner with his wife is grossly inappropriate. It isn't fair to McConnell, his wife, or, perhaps most important, the other patrons of the restaurant. And, perhaps most important, it's aggressively ineffective, to the point of potentially garnering support for McConnell, rather than rallying condemnation against him.

I intensely dislike Mitch McConnell, and everything he represents. And political discourse, even intense, angry, and condemnatory political discourse, has its place. This was neither the time nor the place, and that angry guy is, frankly a moron.

Here's the problem, McConnell dodges his constituents.

Mitch McConnell Employs Turtle Strategy to Avoid Town Hall Turmoil

How else should one proceed if their elected official is unethical, hypocritical and doesn't represent the desires those of who voted them in office?

#Resist

[Jed_]

How else should one proceed if their elected official is unethical, hypocritical and doesn't represent the desires those of who voted them in office?

#Resist

Vote them out of office?

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Mitch McConnell’s call for bipartisanship gets ratioed off the internet

#Resist