Comments by "Gareth Hart" (@tgheretford) on "spiked" channel.

  1. The danger with people agreeing to a mask mandate is that it will be seen by the Government as consent toward a new social contract where your autonomy and freedom is sacrificed for the state deciding what is best for you, "safety" and "the common good".
    24
  2. It's because they deem a man's worth to be based on his ability to attract a partner.
    14
  3. The problem that Spiked and ourselves need to face that freedom is becoming a fringe idea. The majority are fine with sacrificing their freedom for safety. They also do not respond to reason, logic and truth but rather emotional arguments and moral truths. This bitter pill was presented to lockdown sceptics recently by a commentator and I fear they are correct.
    12
  4. Tate was labelled the leader of bachelors this week in a radio discussion. I note that the same charge was repeatedly made about Peterson a couple or so years ago when he was gaining traction in public discourse. I think the issue commentators like those on this podcast have is not just Tate and Peterson per se, its the presumption about the people who follow them and the stereotype that all of them are men without success with women and therefore are failures in life as commentators see a man's value as based on that. To the point of showing these men absolute and total contempt.
    10
  5. The irony being is that the Online Safety Bill will also apply to Virtual Private Networks. If they don't adhere to the requirements of the new law, they can not trade in the UK. But if they do comply, then it defeats the whole purpose of a VPN!
    10
  6. How about challenging Tate's ideas with better ideas? Instead of just ignoring him and hope he and his followers will go away.
    10
  7. The event is free but you have to pay? Whoever wrote that must be working with YouTube toward their plan to paywall the website (I'm not making that up, experiments are underway). Wouldn't it have been better to say "at no extra cost to supporters"?
    9
  8. The danger with what happened in Plymouth is that this is potentially going to be exploited to curb the freedoms and civil liberties of single men, who will all be lumped into the same term of "incel" and declared a danger to women and society. Because maligning, denigrating and segregating them will be far easier than actually having empathy and help men who don't have a partner, as demonstrated in this discussion, it is mainstream to judge men on their ability to attract a partner.
    9
  9. Particuarly the wearing of face coverings. They are a constant reminder to everyone that there is a threat to life everywhere. The problem is, for a fair number of employed people, they are subject to their employer implementing policies on face coverings which require employees to maintain a "public perception" of mask wearing outside of work. In a time where it's too easy for someone to snitch and report you to your employer. Failure to do so is a disclipinary offence which can result in being fired for gross misconduct and bringing the organisation into disrepute. So while it is easy for people to say "take off your mask", millions daren't because the threat of losing the ability to put food on the plate and a roof over their families head is too much of a cost to disobey.
    8
  10. You still have to wear masks on a plane, in a hospital, in a opticians, in a dental practice, in a GP practice and other places too by Government requirement. It is far from over.
    7
  11.  @distantthunder12ck55  Worse still, compelling people to consume a product from a select few private companies by force from the state. It won't stop with the vaccine either. It's coming in future with electric cars and heat pumps to save the Earth from climate change. The precedence is set for any private company or cartel to lobby the Government to compel us to consume their product as a solution to a grave problem for huge profit and control while our bodily autonomy and freedom to choose is abolished on the basis that we need to be saved from ourselves and the concept that freedom is incompatible with human life. Chilling.
    7
  12. It's because commentators assume that Peterson and Tate relate to the same group of people that said commentators have total and complete contempt for, to the point that they are assumed to be beyond help.
    7
  13. They'll keep deflecting the blame to trolls, the "far-right", misogynists, involuntary celibates and critics of lockdown, masks and the vaccine hesitant.
    6
  14. The people who support fracking, geothermal power stations, nuclear power stations, wind turbines and solar farms are the people who don't have to live near any of them. But will be the type of people who will be commuting to and working at them whilst the local economy, environment and working class population lose out.
    6
  15. It seems to be the idea of people helping the perceived audiences of Tate and Peterson is what is deemed misogynistic to these commentators. That such men are beyond help and have been radicalised. They can't win. Help themselves and they get condemned and insulted. Don't help themselves and they're pathetic losers.
    4
  16. The solution being presented by a number of influential individuals for this issue is to erase men's identity, men's spaces and men's rights. Fighting misogyny with misandry makes both sides look bad.
    4
  17. The BBC going subscription means it has to leave terrestrial TV and radio broadcasting, which means the commercial sector will have to make up the shortfall. They will not pay up. Ironically, it could bring about the end of GB News! It will bring about the end of free-to-air broadcasting and the streaming services will increase subscription fees accordingly. Bear this in mind before going forward.
    3
  18. It's the people lusting for martial law, deadly force and authoritarian "temporary" powers on the discussion forums and social media who frankly terrify me.
    3
  19. It's just a few minutes in a shop... It's just a half-an-hour journey... It's just a couple of hours at a gathering... It's just eight hours in a workshift... It's just sixteen hours a day when you're not sleeping or bathing... That's the problem with creeping face mask mandates, once you agree to one, you make it harder to disagree with an extension down the line with arguments such as "It's just £1", "it's a bit of discomfort", "it's not a hardship" and so forth. Meanwhile, cases still rise regardless and the signal of fear and nudge psychology grows in more and more places.
    3
  20. They would just resort to even more extreme measures. Remember, they believe the world is dying and it's either action or extinction.
    3
  21. It's the perceived audience of both Peterson and Tate that the commentators have a serious issue with.
    3
  22. I'm amazed and relieved that no attempt (so far) has been used to exploit the bombing for political purposes. I could imagine that it would be easy fodder for activists to declare it a misogynistic terror attack that is proof that violence and hate against women is radicalising men in time for International Men's Day today, considering the eventual (failed) target of the bomber. Just like how politicians declared that online speech is putting MP's in grave danger after the tragic assassination of Sir David Amess MP.
    3
  23. When Snowdon says that line, the Government will use that as an excuse to justify mandatory vaccinations. Why should any individual be forced to consume a product from a private company under threat from the state to be denied the ability to function in society, negatively impact their financial situation, abolish bodily autonomy and consent as well as take away their liberty? If Snowdon thinks this will begin and end with a vaccine, he will be sorely mistaken.
    3
  24. It's about the perceived audiences of both Peterson and Tate that the panel has a serious distaste for.
    3
  25. The concept of harm, abuse and fear have now been replaced with "disruption", "hostility" and "inconvenience". Terms that are far more vague, widely encompassing and much easier to get the public to be on side with. No-one is going to be pro-disruption, pro-hostility and pro-inconvenience? This is intended to introduce an effective ban on protests and dissent whilst also introducing the concept of pre-crime. "For your safety and security". Effective because whilst not explicitly banned in law (and easy for the Government to say they're not banned), it is now practically impossible to protest if your opinions, views and ideas do not align with the Government.
    3
  26. When you advocate for compulsion for one thing, you open the prospect and precedence for private companies to advocate a solution where they lobby the state to compel you to consume their product across the board. It won't end with the vaccine. Starkey would have to advocate for compulsion for all workers and service users as under his argument, everyone in employment has a legal requirement to maintain the health and safety of other workers and visitors, as do visitors. Should everyone who goes into hospital be mandated to have the jab? Supermarket workers? Shoppers? Social workers? Council tenants? Beyond vaccines? Where does this end, Starkey? Personally, I find this "freedom from risk" or "safetyism" argument to abolish freedom which always includes an element of risk and the abolition of bodily autonomy under the arguments of "protect the NHS", "follow the science" and "your freedoms must end when someone else's health and safety is harmed" very pernicious, controlling and authoritarian.
    2
  27. The rhetoric and the strategy for dealing with the virus in the UK has changed in the last few days. The talk and advice has moved from self-isolating the sick and/or those with a positive test and restricting the freedoms of everyone else as is the case with lockdowns and tiers. Now the talk is that everyone should act as if they are infected and people from Tier 4 areas going to Greater Manchester or the West Midlands are being told to self-isolate, even if well, asymptomatic and having had a negative test. With far more international, scientific and political pressure this time compared to March and November, I wonder if Tier 4 across England may be put on ice for a Wuhan style national quarantine for a couple of weeks?
    2
  28. Whatever happens now, it has now been demonstrated that the state's trust of the people has been irreversibly damaged.
    2
  29. "It's not the right time" will become "It's too soon" which will in time become "It's an offensive viewpoint".
    2
  30. Face muzzles will be a slow "culture change" - the boiling frog analogy. Shops and supermarkets now, Take-away u-turn soon, then another u-turn regarding workplaces. And all public places. Studies will come out telling us that masks have no effect on breathing or oxygen levels, which will bring the end of exemptions we currently have. Schools will be expected to have pupils and teachers wear masks. The end game will be for us to have to wear them in our own homes. The BMJ study on household usage of masks has already been created and published, waiting for it to be rolled out at the right time - at the start of a second wave - to SAGE and the Government. To make not wearing a mask stigmatising and abuse attracting at best, a victim of cancel culture at worst.
    2
  31. Not just the BBC being reviewed, it's the whole of public service broadcasting including free-to-air broadcasting. And as of last week, digital radio broadcasting as well. I think the public need to be asked, are you happy to pay handsomely for media consumption - more of an irony, to over-the-top providers whom also subscribe to the very same ideology of diversity, inclusivity and wokeness?
    2
  32. My bodily autonomy should not end for either the bottom line of private companies or the desire for control by the state to save us from ourselves and others under the argument that freedom is incompatible with human life.
    2
  33. The problem with the mindset of "protest as long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone" is that anyone could make an argument that anyone standing and protesting peacefully in any size of public land is an inconvenience to them enjoying that same space. At that point, protesting in public becomes impossible and will be a free pass for any authoritarian state to ban protest while having the public on its side.
    2
  34. "Obey Boris and Muzzle On"
    2
  35. I'm not religious and I do not wish to impose a politically correct term for Christmas. We're not all offended word police types.
    2
  36. > 'Free speech, but...' I think we've reached that point with Sabisky. Instead of allowing his views to be exposed to sunlight and debunked with science, logic and rational debate, we've now assumed that if Sabisky's views are exposed to the general public, somehow we will become pro-eugenic, genetic deterministic, far right racists. So therefore we must push his views to the "dark web" to be effectively shadowbanned and technically censored from debate and debunking. Where these ideas can fester in an echo chamber, unchallenged and able to gain a supporter base from a minority of individuals away from insight, inquiry and challenge. No. If he is wrong, debunk him. Don't go down the road of going almost to the point of full censorship because you don't like his ideas.
    1
  37. Is the idea of a republic "disruptive" though? Disruption doesn't have to come in the form of behaviour, it can come from ideas, thoughts, opinions, beliefs and speech. The thing with changing the terms from "criminal damage", "fear" and "harm" to "disruption", "nuisance" or "inconvenience" is that the latter terms encompass a lot more things. This is ultimately an effective ban on protest and dissent "for your safety and security" whilst introducing the concept of pre-crime to deal with anyone who Police may deem to profile as someone who may commit a crime whether they would or not.
    1
  38. Who are the biggest financial benefactors from people being told to stay at home and who's being funded by the Government to keep them afloat during a massive advertising downturn as companies eliminate advertising budgets to stay afloat?
    1
  39. Delay guarantees lockdown. All the signs to use this variant to lock us down are there, as they were back in October and December. Only a matter of time before we're back in lockdown if Boris does not develop a backbone and delays. Now the talk from the experts is increasingly the idea of a permanent lockdown, measures and restrictions. "Experts" who the Government listen to and take seriously. Anyone opposed to this, write to your MP - regardless of what you think of them, thousands of letters per MP will focus minds. Write to your local newspaper. Write to the national papers. I wrote to mine yesterday regarding my opposition to the mask mandates and previously regarding lockdown.
    1
  40. On that basis, you would be okay with no platforming individuals whose presence, ideas and speech are deemed to be "disruptive" to other people's mental health and social cohesion as claimed by many students in Universities today?
    1
  41. ​ @BigBenn2014  Except for the fact that TV won't cover them (particuarly now for fear of mass complaints to Ofcom and a threat to their broadcasting licence or soon, website) and having it away from the people who they wish to debate won't hear them. It's silencing of dissent in order to keep people "safe" and "secure".
    1
  42. There are politicians in Germany who want them to follow Brazil's lead and don't forget in the recent unrest, there were calls for X to be banned in the UK. The world feels as if it is becoming more authoritarian. If Brazil gets away with it, others will follow.
    1
  43. The argument will go ""sexist" articles like in the Mail on Sunday are creating a society who believes it is acceptable to watch adult entertainment in the workplace and creating a cesspit of misogyny in our society, therefore we need to add urgent amendments to the Online Safety Bill and Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to criminalise misogynistic behaviour and unwanted communication, ban pornography and end the freedom of the press to rid the gutter press of sexist articles like the one who targeted Angela Rayner. Oh, and Spiked's commentators - the ones who support free speech - agree with us that this is sexist drivel". Careful what you wish for.
    1
  44. To the people moderating this comments section, I know this comment is being shadowbanned and I suspect I have a site-wide shadowban as my engagement in comments has suddenly dropped to zero and none of my comments appear in incognito mode.
    1
  45. There is a typo. Surely you meant 30 month freee trial?
    1
  46. ​ @bambosvoutourides3720  There isn't a problem with civil and reasonable debate. The problem came afterward. When opponents of Myers were labelled "too far gone". We don't generally have society protect the speech of those in that position, they're usually kept away from society for their and others safety. The other problem is the assumption of "settled science". Science is never settled. There is no "the science". There was a time where people thought that the science was settled regarding the Earth being in the centre of the universe and the Sun revolved around it. Anyone who claimed otherwise was deemed in today's parlance "too far gone", a "conspiracy theorist" or spreading "disinformation". But of course, we know what the case is now because of science and technology as well as inquiry and discovery - the other way round. The truth has an uncomfortable habit of coming out in time. Either Spiked will scrub their pro-vaccine articles from the Internet or Bridgen's political career will come to a end and he will be shunned by everyone. Time is vindicating.
    1
  47. Spiked - if you are condemning Trump in the hope that it will appease social media platforms to prevent your cancellation, blink three times.
    1
  48. I don't like the idea of allowing employers and service providers free reign to dictate via policy and contractual obligation on what employees (and themselves leading by example) and customers can think, say and do for fear of being cancelled. We used to have a separation of work and private life which has gone in recent times, particularly since social media. We know commentators on the left like to say "freedom of speech but not freedom of consequences" but commentators on the right are now joining them by saying "free speech for me, contractual obligation for thee".
    1
  49. ​ @craigr4763  We're already seeing the fallout of that argument. It's being used against other influential people to suggest that they led to the rise of Tate - anyone deemed "far-right", other people in the "manosphere", "men's rights activists", behavioural and evolutionary psychologists, political commentators and so forth. That their content, rhetoric and followings led to "reprehensible" behaviour. Now we can justify censoring their content too based on the concept that it radicalises people into "reprehensible" behaviour. We deal with reprehensible behaviour - which is illegal - through due process, not mob justice.
    1
  50. We now have the dangerous precedent where being wrong is a crime. Even if you retract and apologise, that will be no defence in court. Who decides what is right and wrong? The Government.
    1
  51. Now: "It's not the right time, that's just common decency". Next week: "It's too soon, that's just common decency". Next year: "We're a monarchy and that's the end of the matter, that's just common decency".
    1
  52. Since when did we abide and abet mob rule?
    1
  53.  @vandpubsell  No. She was anti-monarchist but what she put in her windows was critical of world leaders, vaccines and other things the mainstream media would label "conspiracy theories".
    1
  54.  @vandpubsell  They have the right to ignore what I say but they do not have the right to silence me because they are offended.
    1
  55. Talking of shadowbanning, lets see if my comment appears in incognito mode. It would be ironic considering the topic of this video if it didn't considering the opposing stance this channel has on the use of shadowbanning to curtail freedom of speech. ETA: Happily it hasn't, but may I ask why my comment was shadowbanned on the last Spiked Podcast's comment section?
    1
  56. I'd be very worried right now if you are a male critic of lockdown, face masks and hesitant of the vaccine, has had no success with women on dating sites and like to give critique, sharp rebukes and uncomfortable truths on social media. You are Government enemy number one. All of those things have been accused of fuelling the fatal danger against MPs this week. There is a dangerous exploitation of a tragedy to push an agenda unrelated to said tragedy.
    1
  57. Now you can be banned from a plethora of discussion forums, comment sections, social media networks and websites across the political spectrum for merely being critical of being compelled to wear a face mask on scientific, medical, environmental, liberty or bodily autonomy grounds.
    1
  58. You don't raise it after the funeral, you don't mention it years down the line in case it upsets and offends. See the problem? This is how the idea of a republic becomes a censored view because there is NEVER a right time to debate this topic.
    1
  59.  @johntowers1213  My argument is that there will never be a good time to have a debate on republicanism because it will either be seen as too soon, disrespectful to the monarchy or offensive.
    1
  60.  Anita Maguire  While I agree in principle, in reality who will sue their employer and both guarantee their unemployment and potentially making themselves unemployable when their case makes it to social media? I can understand why people are hesitant to do anything out of fear when they need to put food on the plate and keep a roof over their head.
    1
  61. The answer is never because someone will get offended at the idea of a republic, no matter what time it is aired. Their idea of "common decency" is that you never bring up the idea of the UK becoming a republic. It also justifies the argument of those who want people to be arrested for offending someone.
    1
  62.  @jac627  "save it until after the funeral" becomes "It's too soon", "It's not an appropriate viewpoint", "the UK will always be a monarchy", "I find that view offensive". See the problem? It is never the right time.
    1
  63.  @jac627  And you will still get people who will say it's too soon, it's not appropriate, it's offensive, it's anti-British. We're talking months, years, decades into the future.
    1