Comments by "Cinderball" (@cinderball1135) on "Justice Secretary warns leadership contenders: lurch right and we split" video.

@jameswhiteley6843 Carl has openly joked about wanting to rape a specific Labour politician, and he's been part of a "comedy" panel where he laughed along to jokes about university students (female students) being acceptable targets for rape. I'm not especially interested in your buzzwords or your catchphrases, I know them all by heart by now, believe me. I'm just curious as to what it is you actually think you believe. Every time I've had a conversation with somebody like you, to this point, and tried to dig into what specifically it is they want to happen in the world, they've either laughed it off as a joke, or they've refused to actually explain themselves in detail. In this case, you haven't actually answered my question yet. Do you support censorship of your political opponents? Are you against all censorship, or is your beef with MSM and social media for shutting down a specific set of speakers that you happen to support? If your movement really is going to grow into something relevant, these are the kind of questions you're going to have to find answers for, rather than deflecting.
2
@plainenglish1774 That statistic proves no such thing. It proves that London (which has a higher proportion of minorities than elsewhere in the country) is suffering from a crime wave among young people. Many of those young people happen to be black, but it's a failure of law enforcement. But hey, don't believe me, ask the Metropolitan Police - the people who have been suffering under Conservative cuts to their funding. Ask them why crime is rising in London. I think, to a man, they will tell you it's because they don't have enough officers. Not a single one of them will tell you "it's all those dirty black people we let in". The moment that something like this happens, mealy-mouthed bigots are there to pounce on it. I knew as soon as I started reading the headlines exactly who was going to be whooping and celebrating. But you didn't arrive at the conclusion that black people are violent because you saw incidents of black people being violent - you believed that to start with and went out looking for evidence to support your case. Now kindly sod off. In my books, you're the antithesis of everything England really stands for.
2
Exactly who is being censored, in your view?
1
@jameswhiteley6843 You mean, people like Karl Benjamin, right? Also people like Tommy Robinson, I assume?
1
@jameswhiteley6843 Okay, and in what way are they being censored? Are you referring to them being banned from social media?
1
@jameswhiteley6843 Okay, but let's slow down here. Tommy Robinson and Karl Benjamin broke the TOS for the platforms that banned them. If organisations you dislike are on there, but don't break the TOS, would you want them censored purely on a political basis? Going by your first comment, it sounds to me as though maybe you don't have a problem with censorship - you only have a problem with it in this case, because you feel it's people on your side that are in the crosshairs right now. Would that be fair to say?
1
@jameswhiteley6843 "Being right-wing is now the counter culture and the left are the puritans who censor their opponents. That's about to change." Correct me if I'm wrong, but the meaning of this comment is to say "soon, we will be the ones censoring them" - no? If you're interested in learning about Facebook, Twitter and various other platforms' TOS, they are usually quite freely available to read - if a bit lengthy. Sure, there is room for subjectivity in their enforcement, but I ask you - if somebody is advocating raping and murdering a political opponent, do you expect a tech company to ignore that? Are you okay with politicians using threats of rape as a means of controlling their opposition?
1
@jameswhiteley6843 Focus. I asked you a specific question about censorship. Do you support it being used against your political opponents?
1
@jameswhiteley6843 Okay, so all speech is acceptable to you, no matter how hateful, provocative or inflammatory it might be? If I gave out your address to the public, and advocated that somebody send you a fire bomb, would that be acceptable speech?
1
@jameswhiteley6843 See, here we are going to have to differ. Hate speech is not determined by the recipient. That's a ludicrous proposition. By that token, I could call anything hate speech, and nobody on earth behaves that way. Hate speech, clearly defined, is any speech which is likely to give rise to hatred towards any group or individual based on cultural, ethnic, religious, social or political lines. That might be somewhat subjective, depending on what you consider "likely to give rise to hatred", but I would argue that joking about raping somebody is very likely to cause them harm, especially if I have hundreds of thousands of militant followers, who are likely to act on even my subtler suggestions. What you have outlined here is possibly the most extremist possible interpretation of "freedom of speech", which amounts to "mob rule". You won't find many people who agree with that interpretation.
1
@jameswhiteley6843 "There should be no laws on hate speech" - really? You want for people to be singled out for abuse because, for example, they happen to be Jewish? You want it to be acceptable for mosques to receive threats of arson (or worse)? You want women to be threatened with rape on Twitter and for nothing to be done about it. I'm sure you'll call this characterisation of your politics "incendiary" or perhaps "alarmist", but this is simply the outcome that such changes in the law would lead to. The only possible reason you'd want that situation, so far as I can tell, is because you intend to engage in that kind of bad behaviour yourself. Mr "I Wouldn't Even Rape You" is hardly elevating our national discourse. There are laws on this subject, like it or not, and we as a society expect you to abide by them - or face the consequences.
1
@jameswhiteley6843 See, right from the start of your comment, you've got the whole concept back to front. When somebody commits a crime, seemingly your first question is "what race was the culprit?" - which I think is a rather loopy way to break down crime. Since when did the race of the perpetrator have anything to do with how they're treated? Nobody is above the law - especially not on grounds of race. I think it would be far more pertinent to ask "who was the victim?" and see if there's any correlations in the pattern of who gets targeted for abuse and threats. And wouldn't you know it, but if you're a woman, a person of colour or from a socially deprived group, you are far more likely to be attacked or abused than a white man would be. But that's neither here nor there. Crimes are crimes, and should be punished. The fact that you don't like it that hate crimes are punishable by law doesn't change that law. The law is the law. And please will you stop wittering on about the "dishonest media", some of us are trying to have a serious grown-up conversation here. If you can't stay on-topic, then get off this forum. For the record, the far-right doesn't have a monopoly on critique of the mainstream media. I have a few words of my own for them, but that is not the topic of this conversation. Another thing which we are not talking about is "criticism". What I'm seeing from people like Karl Benjamin isn't criticism, it's just stoking hatred. Again, I see no possible way to justify the comment "I wouldn't even rape you".
1
Just wanted to throw in a quick addendum for fans of Karl "I Won't Watch A Video That's More Than Five Minutes Long Before Responding To It" Benjamin, before I sign off - you really need to stop giving these icons of yours such a ludicrous amount of hero-worship. We're all human, we all make mistakes - only when somebody like him makes a mistake, you're all made to look like lunatics, going to bat for a potty-mouthed idiot.
1
@jameswhiteley6843 "when somebody commits a crime you first find out the motive" - wait. A minute ago, you told me that you wanted to know the race of the culprit. Are you telling me you think you can profile a potential criminal (and how likely they are to do something violent) based on their race?
1
@plainenglish1774 Ah yes, because we all know how representative London is of England as a whole. Nice cherrypicking.
1
@plainenglish1774 Triggered much? I thought you were the tough guys who preferred facts over feelings. My bad!
1
@lukeskywalker2481 I must've missed the part of Star Wars where Luke Skywalker acted like an incoherent, hateful bigot. shrug
1