Unis, Free Specech etc.

[Pepe]

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/02/u-connecticut-creates-new-living-learning-center-black-male-students?utm_content=bufferba492&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=IHEbuffer


Freshmen and sophomores will begin living in the Scholastic House of Leaders who are African-American Researchers and Scholars -- or ScHOLA2RS House -- this fall. While male students of any race may apply to the program, it is designed to “support the scholastic efforts of male students who identify as African-American,” the university's description of the program says.

Should have just called it ghetto and be done with it.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

Does anyone have any idea how big a percentage of students these twats are?

[randomlegend]

identify as African-American

As if that's something you can choose :D

[Boydy]

Not very.

[ItalAussie]

'Campus' as a concept is what needs banning. Nobody 'on' it has ever experienced the real world.

I have to agree. I think it's important to have a life outside the university, and the university model would be more productive if students were to treat it as a job rather than an all-encompassing lifestyle.

[Reg]

Not as fun though.

[niko_cee]

Robot House!

[GS]

It would be great if Oxford just told them to fuck off somewhere else. Or "we'll do it, but our alumni won't give us money so we're discontinuing your course effective immediately. Please fuck off."

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8kcNJLpRJ4

Listening to 2 of these sanctimonious pricks is maddening, but it needs to be shown what the left's suppression of free speech looks like. And their ridiculous justification for it, which appears to be 'I don't like it'.

[ItalAussie]

I recall that we established that you have no problem with the suppression of free speech you don't like (specifically, you have no objection to bans on religious expression). You're not a free speech absolutist by any means.

[QE Harold Flair]

I recall that we established that you have no problem with the suppression of free speech you don't like (specifically, you have no objection to bans on religious expression). You're not a free speech absolutist by any means.

Not an absolutist, no. Law dictates there are limits and I'm happy that incitement to kill people, for example, is not allowed. I'm not in favour of bans on religious expression? I'll happily use my free speech to mock them, perhaps.

[ItalAussie]

Not an absolutist, no. Law dictates there are limits and I'm happy that incitement to kill people, for example, is not allowed. I'm not in favour of bans on religious expression? I'll happily use my free speech to mock them, perhaps.Nothing wrong with any of that, and I think both of those things (bans on incitement to commit a crime, and mocking people with whom you disagree while not silencing them) are perfectly reasonable.

But you've said before that you have no objection to bans on things like public expressions of religion, including prayer and items of clothing (all of which fall fairly square into free speech by legal standards). I'm honestly pleasantly surprised to see you taking a pro-free speech stance on the issue.

[QE Harold Flair]

Nothing wrong with any of that, and I think both of those things (bans on incitement to commit a crime, and mocking people with whom you disagree while not silencing them) are perfectly reasonable.

But you've said before that you have no objection to bans on things like public expressions of religion, including prayer and items of clothing (all of which fall fairly square into free speech by legal standards). I'm honestly pleasantly surprised to see you taking a pro-free speech stance on the issue.

No, I don't think I have. I think I said I agreed with the woman not being allowed to wear a visible crucifix at work, and those sorts of things (prayers at work). But that's company uniform and breaks policy, and nothing to do with free speech.

[ItalAussie]

No, I don't think I have. I think I said I agreed with the woman not being allowed to wear a visible crucifix at work, and those sorts of things (prayers at work). But that's company uniform and breaks policy, and nothing to do with free speech.It's easy enough to find cases on the old board where you have supported burqa bans. On banning the burqa: http://thedugout.tv/community/showpost.php?p=2763803&postcount=11

And here on the new board, where you said you weren't bothered one way or another:
http://www.thethirdhalf.co.uk/showthread.php?10-The-UK-Politics-Thread-Wot-did-Jez-do-now/page11

Plenty of others. I picked the first one because you were particularly vitriolic, so it makes for a decent example. I presume you're no longer in favour of laws such as banning the burqa, and you're just happy to mock them, rather than restrict their religious expression by law?

[Toby]

I'd be more interested to know if Yevrah still holds the view he puts forward in that thread.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's easy enough to find cases on the old board where you have supported burqa bans. On banning the burqa: http://thedugout.tv/community/showpost.php?p=2763803&postcount=11

And here on the new board, where you said you weren't bothered one way or another:
http://www.thethirdhalf.co.uk/showthread.php?10-The-UK-Politics-Thread-Wot-did-Jez-do-now/page11

Plenty of others. I picked the first one because you were particularly vitriolic, so it makes for a decent example. I presume you're no longer in favour of laws such as banning the burqa, and you're just happy to mock them, rather than restrict their religious expression by law?

The reason being it's been shown that it also limits free expression of women forced to wear it. If it were the case that no women were cowed into wearing it then I wouldn't have a problem, but we both know that's not the case. I am indeed happy to mock them, but I can see why banning them is justfiable, too.

[ItalAussie]

So you hold the possibility that some speech within a class might be coerced is a legitimate reason to clamp down on that entire class of speech? Rather than banning the coercion itself.

[QE Harold Flair]

So you hold the possibility that some speech within a class might be coerced is a legitimate reason to clamp down on that entire class of speech? Rather than banning the coercion itself.

It's not speech, it's expression. And there are caveats here which make it completely different from making sure someone at university cannot speak. I could just as easily turn it around and accuse you of prolonging the suffering of those forced to wear it. It's a 'there's no easy answer' case.

[Lewis]

That is literally the same argument that the 'No Platform' twats use. We ban x because they prevent y from speaking.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's nothing near the same. There are caveats, which I have been through, which do not exist in the example I posted. Who is prevented from speaking if they don't ban 'x'?

[ItalAussie]

It's not speech, it's expression.
"Freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression" are two ways of referring to the same legal concept, and can be used interchangeably. These are well-defined ideas, and there's no semantic argument to be made here.

You're perfectly willing to limit that freedom for all based on a risk of misuse by some. You're not the only one to think that, but it does suggest that your commitment to free speech has some interesting limitations. Which is fine.

[QE Harold Flair]

Like I said, and like you agree, free speech is not unlimited. I put it top you, again, that the circumstances regarding the burka are vastly different to the circumstances portrayed in the video I posted, if you even bothered to watch it.

No doubt you also agree that I cannot wear a bike helmet or balaclava in a bank? That's you 'limiting the freedom of all on a risk of misuse by some'. We can all play this game, can't we?

[phonics]

Watch his thirty three minute long video, Ital. Jeez.

[QE Harold Flair]

Watch his thirty three minute long video, Ital. Jeez.

Well he did respond to that post.

[Lewis]

Banks are private institutions, like nightclubs that don't allow trainers. It's not a valid comparison.

[QE Harold Flair]

What, so there's a caveat? Who cares?

[Lewis]

The bank can only stop you wearing things on their property. People who want to ban burkas want the ban to apply to all public areas. It's not a caveat. It's a fundamental difference.

[QE Harold Flair]

And there's clear differences between the example posted and the burka ban.

[Lewis]

The student wankers object to 'harmful' expression, and claim to be doing so to protect the freedom for marginalised people to express themselves. That is what burka banners do when they claim they are standing up for the women who don't want to wear it.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, but the case for oppression of women in Islam is actually real. And putting a bin bag over someone to completely hide them is a pretty strong symbol of that. Don't pretend they are the same. Also, students are free not to attend anything which they don't like.

[phonics]

"I'm a free speech absolutist apart from the things I don't like!"

[QE Harold Flair]

Except I've already stated I am not. Keep up.

[Lewis]

Yes, but the case for oppression of women in Islam is actually real. And putting a bin bag over someone to completely hide them is a pretty strong symbol of that. Don't pretend they are the same. Also, students are free not to attend anything which they don't like.

You would need to prove that somebody is forcing them to wear it against their will (which you can't; see: my old 'sharia courts' E-Victory), otherwise you are stopping people seemingly doing what they want to do. Then again, they could always not leave the house. That way they're free to express themselves, just not where it might cause harm.

[QE Harold Flair]

You would need to prove that somebody is forcing them to wear it against their will (which you can't; see: my old 'sharia courts' E-Victory), otherwise you are stopping people seemingly doing what they want to do. Then again, they could always not leave the house. That way they're free to express themselves, just not where it might cause harm.

I can prove that some are, certainly. People are stopped from doing what they want to do all the time - try walking down the street naked. Actually, don't.

[Lewis]

You can prove some Muslim men are forcing their women to wear the burka against their will? Why don't you report them? And you're right, people should be able to walk around naked.

[QE Harold Flair]

Of course I can, individual stories aren't hard to find. This story didn't materialise out of thin air, after all.

And okay, then....

[Yevrah]

I'd be more interested to know if Yevrah still holds the view he puts forward in that thread.

Which ones?

[Toby]

The gist of it seemed to be that the burqa (and other face coverings) should be banned in public because it made you (and might make others) feel uncomfortable to not be able to see people's faces.

[Yevrah]

The gist of it seemed to be that the burqa (and other face coverings) should be banned in public because it made you (and might make others) feel uncomfortable to not be able to see people's faces.

Yeah, I think they're rubbish things that divide societies and oppress women.

We can say that they wear them voluntarily/it's their choice, but they do so after a life of indoctrination.

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade, and when you do so, women having to cover up their faces and (all of their) bodies in public is fucking ridiculous and something I strongly disagree with.

Banning might have been a bit strong, as I've come to see that that doesn't really improve the situation, but I'd certainly much sooner live in a world where they didn't exist.

[Toby]

You never mentioned oppression in that thread and it didn't even seem to be implied.

[Yevrah]

You never mentioned oppression in that thread and it didn't even seem to be implied.

It's always implied. If they weren't instruments of oppression the men would be wearing them too.

[Toby]

It's always implied. If they weren't instruments of oppression the men would be wearing them too.


I don't really see a problem with banning the niqab.

Are people against this really suggesting that a free society is one that allows anyone to do what they like, regardless of how it imacts upon others?


I don't want to be in a position where I can't see the face of anyone around me in a public place. It's horibly impersonal and doesn't fit well within an already horribly fractured society.

The entire thrust of your argument was that it impacted upon you (and other people). At no point was respect for the women themselves brought up. You even mentioned the smoking ban as a counterpoint when challenged on it.

It doesn't really matter, I just thought it was an out of character argument for you.

[Yevrah]

Ok, well if that was the sole focus of my argument back then, then I don't still agree with that, no.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's still a legitimate concern. I mean fine, if you want to put up a barrier and imply by your dress that I am constantly horny and want to rape you then don't expect me to be particularly friendly to you.

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiESisEL43c



The most brazen untruths always come from the left, just like most of the plagiarism scandals. Because they believe in narrative over fact

[Kikó]

What a shit barnet.

[QE Harold Flair]

What a shit barnet.

The most brazen untruths always come from the left.

[Lewis]

Has anyone here ever been caught up in a plagiarism scandal?

[GS]

Whose work did you rip off?

[QE Harold Flair]

The non excellent Johann Hari was, wasn't he?

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtxxzKNlzXo

Play-doh and puppy noises at uni :D

Fuck me.

[Lewis]

Whose work did you rip off?

Not me. It was a facts-over-narrative lol at Harold.

[QE Harold Flair]

Not me. It was a facts-over-narrative lol at Harold.

I just gave you a name, off the top of my head. I know there will be more as Milo is a fountain of truth on these things. But you're not interested in what's true, anyway.

[Toby]

Numbers at rallies/protests/gatherings seem to get misreported or misrepresented all the time. I remember both sides of the Scottish independence using manipulative photos to make it look like more/fewer people were attending something to suit whatever they were arguing. Cue massive gatherings at George Square reported with photos of five people off to one side, or tiny gatherings on a street reported with really close up footage of the first line of people.

That SlutWalk appears to be the latter, to be fair to Milo, but he's full of shit if he thinks only one side of the political spectrum is at it.

[QE Harold Flair]

That SlutWalk appears to be the latter, to be fair to Milo, but he's full of shit if he thinks only one side of the political spectrum is at it.

The Scotland example wasn't really a left/right wing one, though.

[Lewis]

I know Johann Hari was at it. However, I was referring to that time you were debating free will with Challenger and copied and pasted posts from another forum, and when somebody (Oimoi I think) found the other forum you repeatedly claimed to have [both] lifted them from a science journal. You had 'Plagiarist' as your custom title for months afterwards.

Hence, facts over narrative.

[Toby]

Not really no, but it's an example of those who support something (to any political leaning) attempting to manipulate message. It happens all the time and certainly isn't isolated to SlutWalk supporters, feminists, or "The Left" more generally.

[QE Harold Flair]

I know Johann Hari was at it. However, I was referring to that time you were debating free will with Challenger and copied and pasted posts from another forum, and when somebody (Oimoi I think) found the other forum you repeatedly claimed to have [both] lifted them from a science journal. You had 'Plagiarist' as your custom title for months afterwards.

Hence, facts over narrative.

I don't remember that incident at all. I remember the title but if I had said I lifted it from somewhere then it isn't plagiarism. It's simply stating the wrong source.

Meanwhile, I'm not a journalist.

[QE Harold Flair]

Not really no, but it's an example of those who support something (to any political leaning) attempting to manipulate message. It happens all the time and certainly isn't isolated to SlutWalk supporters, feminists, or "The Left" more generally.

I can't remember any exaggerations of any immigration or EDL rallies. Or anything of that nature. They're usually reported as being less, if anything.

[QE Harold Flair]

https://media2.giphy.com/media/Ro6bzW9q9Bttu/200.gif

[Toby]

I can't remember any exaggerations of any immigration or EDL rallies. Or anything of that nature. They're usually reported as being less, if anything.

Of course. :D

This is the thing with demonstrations. Nobody is really going to bother to go look at photos and dispute claims like this, so people make things up and others go with it. Media here would typically take numbers from the police, which I would trust before the EDL's own estimates. I think even without trying to be dishonest people tend to overestimate numbers attending things if it's something they're passionate about - you see the same with sports events and whatever else where there's no official tally.

[John]

Of course. :D

This is the thing with demonstrations. Nobody is really going to bother to go look at photos and dispute claims like this, so people make things up and others go with it. Media here would typically take numbers from the police, which I would trust before the EDL's own estimates. I think even without trying to be dishonest people tend to overestimate numbers attending things if it's something they're passionate about - you see the same with sports events and whatever else where there's no official tally.

The EDL estimate is likely to have been the number of people who responded to a Facebook event.

[Lewis]

I don't remember that incident at all. I remember the title but if I had said I lifted it from somewhere then it isn't plagiarism. It's simply stating the wrong source.

Meanwhile, I'm not a journalist.

What happened was you copied them from another forum (you had actually re-written the first couple of lines to cover your tracks, but then gave up), denied having done so, and then claimed that the other person must have also copied them from the same source (which of you re-wrote the first few lines was never established) a few years before.

[QE Harold Flair]

What happened was you copied them from another forum (you had actually re-written the first couple of lines to cover your tracks, but then gave up), denied having done so, and then claimed that the other person must have also copied them from the same source (which of you re-wrote the first few lines was never established) a few years before.

Nope, I don't remember that at all. I do sometimes forget to put quote marks around things but I usually correct it as I edit my posts straight after if I see something wrong.

If you're going back to Oimoi days that was over a decade ago. You really must be autistic if you remember something that far back. And just to repeat, I'm not a journalist.

[Lewis]

I think it was 2008. The initial lies that were the most damning aspect of it all, journalist or not.

[QE Harold Flair]

I think it was 2008. The initial lies that were the most damning aspect of it all, journalist or not.

You only lied today about something.

I can't really comment as I don't keep a rain man knowledge of topics from a decade ago.

[Lewis]

I admire your commitment to insisting I never read something that I managed to describe and quote for you, but I'm sure others remember this as well.

[Kikó]

I remember it.

[QE Harold Flair]

Of course you do.

[QE Harold Flair]

I admire your commitment to insisting I never read something that I managed to describe and quote for you, but I'm sure others remember this as well.

You admitted not reading the whole study after claiming you had.

[Kikó]

Maybe I'm lying as well.

[Lewis]

You admitted not reading the whole study after claiming you had.

To make fun of you. Jeez. And you call me autistic. Why not try reading it yourself in twenty minutes to see whether I did it? That would kill two birds with one stone, since you could then engage the arguments.

[QE Harold Flair]

Maybe I'm lying as well.

Maybe. I have to admit, the memory of you wearing a tin hat and claiming 9/11 was a conspiracy isn't leaving me.

[QE Harold Flair]

To make fun of you. Jeez. And you call me autistic. Why not try reading it yourself in twenty minutes to see whether I did it? That would kill two birds with one stone, since you could then engage the arguments.

There was no indication of a joke at all. Especially since you went on to claim you did at least read the main parts. No chance that was a joke.

[Lewis]

Seriously. Try reading it in twenty minutes. You're not doing anything else. You should read it anyway.

[Kikó]

Maybe. I have to admit, the memory of you wearing a tin hat and claiming 9/11 was a conspiracy isn't leaving me.

Cool.

[phonics]

Peter Tatchell, the man who attempted a citizens arrest on Mugabe, is now a racist and transphobic apparently.

The emails from the officer of the National Union of Students (http://www.theguardian.com/education/students) were unequivocal. Fran Cowling, the union’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) representative, said that she would not share a stage with a man whom she regarded as having been racist and “transphobic”.

That the man in question is Peter Tatchell (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/peter-tatchell) – one of the country’s best-known gay rights campaigners, who next year celebrates his 50th year as an activist – is perhaps a mark of how fractured the debate on free speech and sexual politics has become.

In the emails, sent to the organisers of a talk at Canterbury Christ Church University on Monday on the topic of “re-radicalising queers”, Cowling refuses an invitation to speak unless Tatchell, who has also been invited, does not attend. In the emails she cites Tatchell’s signing of an open letter in the Observer (http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2015/feb/14/letters-censorship?CMP=twt_gu) last year in support of free speech and against the growing trend of universities to “no-platform” people, such as Germaine Greer, for holding views with which they disagree.

Cowling claims the letter supports the incitement of violence against transgender people. She also made an allegation against him of racism or of using racist language. Tatchell told the Observer that the incident was yet another example of “a witch-hunting, accusatory atmosphere” symptomatic of a decline in “open debate on some university campuses”.

One of the founding members of direct action group OutRage!, which caused a storm in the 1990s by outing establishment figures it claimed were homophobic in public and homosexual in private, Tatchell is used to being in the establishment firing line. But the original radical queer is now finding himself having to think long and hard about free speech.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Why do people treat students/student bodies as being relevant to anything? The national union of five year olds would speak more sense.

[QE Harold Flair]

It matters because these groups can stop people speaking, and continue to do so.

[ItalAussie]

Why do people treat students/student bodies as being relevant to anything? The national union of five year olds would speak more sense.

When I was an undergrad, my university cared so little about student elections that in a university of over 20,000 people, one of the positions on the student council was won by 8 votes to 5.

It was brilliant.

[John Arne]

Man arrested for offensive tweets;

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/16/man-arrested-facebook-posts-syrian-refugees-scotland


Police Scotland have said the arrest of a man responsible for a series of offensive Facebook posts about Syrian refugees resettled on the Isle of Bute should send a clear message that such social media abuse will not be tolerated.

Following a report of a series of alleged offensive online posts relating to Syrian refugees living in Rothesay on Bute, Police Scotland confirmed on Tuesday that a 40-year-old man, understood to be from the Inverclyde area, had been arrested under the Communications Act.


I'm really intrigued as to the content of these tweets. People should be free to be idiots and stupid, however, there is of course a line. If he tweeted something like 'I hate Syrians, I wish that they weren't here' - then whilst clearly a moron, he shouldn't be arrested.
However, if it was 'let's all meet up and beat up those Syrians' - then fair enough.

[QE Harold Flair]

Ah yes, I see the Merkel/Zuckerberg pact has begun.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3252209/Chancellor-Merkel-confronts-Facebook-s-Mark-Zuckerberg-anti-immigrant-hate-posts-country-seeks-fight-against-wave-arson-attacks-aimed-refugees.html

[Toby]

That's the same article you posted last time (and it's from September of last year).

[John]

Man arrested for offensive tweets;

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/16/man-arrested-facebook-posts-syrian-refugees-scotland



I'm really intrigued as to the content of these tweets. People should be free to be idiots and stupid, however, there is of course a line. If he tweeted something like 'I hate Syrians, I wish that they weren't here' - then whilst clearly a moron, he shouldn't be arrested.
However, if it was 'let's all meet up and beat up those Syrians' - then fair enough.

Police Scotland are going big on Twitter crime at the moment. They picked up a fifteen year old the other day for saying he hoped Lee Griffiths children died.

[QE Harold Flair]

That's the same article you posted last time (and it's from September of last year).

I know, that's the point. Those talks have obviously come to fruition.

Meanwhile, there was this last week:


Dutch cops are policing anti-mass migration comments, even threatening social media users of “sedition” for opposing government policies. The news has emerged after police paid visits to warn multiple people who made anti-mass migration comments on social media, reports DW.com (http://dw.com/).
Mark Jongeneel, a small business owner in the Dutch city of Sliedrecht, tweeted: “The college of Sliedrecht has a proposal to receive 250 refugees in the coming 2 years. What a bad plan! #letusresist”

Mr. Jongeneel then got a visit to his mother’s house, and subsequently his place of work, from police who wanted to warn him over his comments.

Speaking to DW.com (http://dw.com/), he described the events: “I asked them what the problem was and they said ‘your tweets.’
“They asked me to be careful about my Twitter behaviour, because if there are riots, then I’m responsible.”
“You tweet a lot,” said the police, explaining: “We have orders to ask you to watch your tone. Your tweets may seem seditious”.

It can only be surmised that police were referring to the hashtag #letusresist when talking about responsibility for anyone rioting. The hashtag, which in Dutch is #kominVerzet, is commonly used by people who oppose mass migration, mostly sharing articles and videos and expressions of anger and anxiety.


Nowhere in the hashtag could it be seen that anyone was mentioning organised rioting or violence.

And Mr. Jongeneel was not the only person visited by police. Another Dutch man by the name of Johan from Kaatsheuvel was visited after he had posted a Facebook status that said: “There was a meeting in the council hall, an information evening, just for the people of our city.” He added: “we had to get together at the market square to have a protest, because, I will be very honest, we’re not happy with the asylum seekers in our country.”
The city of Kaatsheuvel has plans to house at least 1,200 migrants and Johan’s protest at the market was meant to merely show his resistance to the idea. Police allegedly intimidated Johan into not going ahead with his protest and he wrote after their visit, “just had a visit from the police with the friendly request not to call for a meeting at the market tomorrow or Monday.”
According to a friend of Johan’s, who wished to remain anonymous, between seven or eight others were also visited by police in the town that day for similar social media posts.
New Europe reports (http://neurope.eu/article/you-tweet-too-much-about-refugee-the-dutch-are-told-by-police/):

In recent months, police have visited the homes of many more people that criticised the plans for asylum centres. In October 2015, in Leeuwarden about twenty opponents of the programs received police visits at home. It happened in Enschede, and in some places in the Brabant, where, according to the Dutch media, people who had been critical of the arrival of refugees and ran a page on social media on the topic were told to stop.
A spokesman for the national police acknowledged to Handelsblad that there are ten intelligence units of “digital detectives” monitoring in real time Facebook pages and Twitter accounts and looking for posts that go “too far”.


The visits are likely in response to the multiple riots in small towns over the construction of asylum centres. Dutch police even fired tear gas into protestors in the small town of Geldermalsen after beer bottles and fireworks were thrown. Rioters attempted (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/12/17/dutch-riot-over-plans-for-a-refugee-centre/) to force their way into a town hall meeting which was discussing the plans for a 1,500 person asylum centre in a town of only 27,000.
Small towns in the Netherlands and in Germany have had to bear a disproportional cost for the migrant crisis, as governments have sent large amounts of migrants into or around these small towns. The migrants are often housed in nearby holiday resorts as in the case (http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2015/10/drenthe-village-gives-up-blockade-refugee-buses-arrive/) of Oranje, where a town of 140 people bore the brunt of having 700 refugees housed nearby. Angry locals tried to blockade the road to stop migrant filled busses from getting to the nearby resort but eventually gave up.
The German government has stated the reason why it has sent so many migrants to small towns, saying, “the rural regions are a laboratory of integration,” citing the lack of ability for ghettos to emerge in smaller towns unlike cities. The government also mentions (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/25/rural-germany-an-integration-laboratory-for-migrants/) how migrants will shore up “dwindling populations” already in the countryside.
The Dutch police have commented positively on their campaign and a spokesman has said that they find it effective. Mark Jongeneel has said he refuses to change his language on social media, emphasising his desire for free speech and saying, “I will not be silenced.”

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/27/you-tweet-a-lot-watch-your-tone-cops-threaten-dutch-man-for-opposing-govt-mass-migration-plans/

[Toby]

I know, that's the point. Those talks have obviously come to fruition.

In what sense? Are you suggesting they're relevant to JA's link?

[QE Harold Flair]

In what sense? Are you suggesting they're relevant to JA's link?

Yes. There has obviously been political persuasion in these recent attacks on free speech.

[Toby]

It has nothing to do with either Zuckerberg or Merkel, and British police (perhaps even more so Police Scotland) have been pursuing charges for abuse via social media for ages now. It's not a new development.

[John Arne]

I'll be honest, I didn't even realise that Harold was making a link :) I thought he was posting something completely different.

[Spammer]

We got a pirate to win our Presidential Election. That's how much of a shit people gave.

I even ran in my third year, with policies such as "Reduce decline by increasing reduction!" and "Establish a transparent paradigm matrix to promote synthesis!". Largely because it annoed me how much buzzword shite people genuinely came out with without ever really explaining what they mean. There was a mix of people liking it and self-righteous twats thinking it 'undermined the importance of student politics'. Most people who go into it do so for the sake of their CV, in my experience.

[QE Harold Flair]

It has nothing to do with either Zuckerberg or Merkel, and British police (perhaps even more so Police Scotland) have been pursuing charges for abuse via social media for ages now. It's not a new development.

Of course it does. Mewrkel is the most influential leader in Europe, and Zuckerberg is the head of Facebook. These things don't just happen, you know. They are part of a wider campaign.

If you can tell me what 'the abuse' is regarding the Dutch case I showed.....

[Toby]

I'll be honest, I didn't even realise that Harold was making a link :) I thought he was posting something completely different.

Same.


Of course it does. Mewrkel is the most influential leader in Europe, and Zuckerberg is the head of Facebook. These things don't just happen, you know. They are part of a wider campaign.


British police targeting this sort of thing far predates the comments you're referring to. Zuckerberg being "Head of Facebook" has absolutely no bearing on somebody being charged for doing offensive things on Facebook (let alone that some of it was on rival platform Twitter). It's a completely standalone issue.

[QE Harold Flair]

British police targeting this sort of thing far predates the comments you're referring to. Zuckerberg being "Head of Facebook" has absolutely no bearing on somebody being charged for doing offensive things on Facebook (let alone that some of it was on rival platform Twitter). It's a completely standalone issue.

How do you know? What kind of thing? Do you even know what he said? You still haven't answered my question regarding the Dutch people visited by the police for opposing mass immigration. Are you aware of any cases of people being visited by the police merely for resisiting mass immigration and 'refugees' before Merkel and Zuckercunt speaking? I doubt it.

[Toby]

How do I know what?

I haven't answered your question about the Dutch because I don't care. It's not relevant to the actions of British police, who have been doing this sort of thing for years now.

[QE Harold Flair]

You don't even know what he said - so how do you know there has been cases before? If it's something similar to the Dutch case then it is indeed something new.


And yes, it is entirely relevant. We are a part of Europe, as things stand. And this is happening around Europe.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well now, I think we can all agree on the excellence of Douglas Murray. And he's not happy about all this right here, just like me:


It was only a few weeks ago that Facebook was forced to back down when caught (http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-and-israel-whats-not-to-like-lots-it-seems-1452641834) permitting anti-Israel postings, but censoring equivalent anti-Palestinian postings.
Now one of the most sinister stories of the past year was hardly even reported. In September, German Chancellor Angela Merkel met Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook at a UN development summit in New York. As they sat down, Chancellor Merkel's microphone, still on, recorded Merkel asking Zuckerberg (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/30/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-confronting-mark-z/) what could be done to stop anti-immigration postings being written on Facebook. She asked if it was something he was working on, and he assured her it was.
At the time, perhaps the most revealing aspect of this exchange was that the German Chancellor -- at the very moment that her country was going through one of the most significant events in its post-war history -- should have been spending any time worrying about how to stop public dislike of her policies being vented on social media. But now it appears that the discussion yielded consequential results.

Last month, Facebook launched what it called an "Initiative for civil courage online (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-launches-initiative-for-civil-courage-online-to-delete-racist-and-threatening-posts-a6821581.html)," the aim of which, it claims, is to remove "hate speech" from Facebook -- specifically by removing comments that "promote xenophobia." Facebook is working with a unit of the publisher Bertelsmann, which aims to identify and then erase "racist" posts from the site. The work is intended particularly to focus on Facebook users in Germany. At the launch of the new initiative, Facebook's chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, explained that, "Hate speech has no place in our society -- not even on the internet." She went to say that, "Facebook is not a place for the dissemination of hate speech or incitement to violence." Of course, Facebook can do what it likes on its own website. What is troubling is what this organization of effort and muddled thinking reveals about what is going on in Europe.

The mass movement of millions of people -- from across Africa, the Middle East and further afield -- into Europe has happened in record time and is a huge event in its history. As events in Paris (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6975/paris-attacks-lesson), Cologne (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7201/germany-migrant-policy) and Sweden (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7363/sweden-death-by-immigration) have shown, it is also by no means a series of events only with positive connotations.
As well as being fearful of the security implications of allowing in millions of people whose identities, beliefs and intentions are unknown and -- in such large numbers -- unknowable, many Europeans are deeply concerned that this movement heralds an irreversible alteration in the fabric of their society. Many Europeans do not want to become a melting pot for the Middle East and Africa, but want to retain something of their own identities and traditions. Apparently, it is not just a minority who feel concern about this. Poll after poll shows a significant majority of the public in each and every European country opposed to immigration at anything like the current rate.


The sinister thing about what Facebook is doing is that it is now removing speech that presumably almost everybody might consider racist -- along with speech that only someone at Facebook decides is "racist."

And it just so happens to turn out that, lo and behold, this idea of "racist" speech appears to include anything critical of the EU's current catastrophic immigration policy.
By deciding that "xenophobic" comment in reaction to the crisis is also "racist," Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people (who, it must be stressed, are opposed to Chancellor Merkel's policies) into "racist" views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as "racist." This is a policy that will do its part in pushing Europe into a disastrous future.
Because even if some of the speech Facebook is so scared of is in some way "xenophobic," there are deep questions as to why such speech should be banned. In lieu of violence, speech is one of the best ways for people to vent their
feelings and frustrations. Remove the right to speak about your frustrations, and only violence is left. Weimar Germany -- to give just one example -- was replete with hate-speech laws intended to limit speech the state did not like. These laws did nothing whatsoever to limit the rise of extremism; it only made martyrs out of those it pursued, and persuaded an even larger number of people that the time for talking was over.


The sinister reality of a society in which the expression of majority opinion is being turned into a crime has already been seen across Europe. Just last week, reports from the Netherlands (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/27/you-tweet-a-lot-watch-your-tone-cops-threaten-dutch-man-for-opposing-govt-mass-migration-plans/) told of Dutch citizens being visited by the police and warned about posting anti-mass-immigration sentiments on Twitter and other social media.

In this toxic mix, Facebook has now -- knowingly or unknowingly -- played its part. The lid is being put on the pressure cooker at precisely the moment that the heat is being turned up. A true "initiative for civil courage" would explain to both Merkel and Zuckerberg that their policy can have only one possible result.

http://leftfootforward.org/images/2013/05/Douglas-Murray.png

[Toby]

I don't need to know exactly what was said to know it's no break away from what has been going on in Britain (and as I said, perhaps even more so Scotland (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/scotland-no-country-for-free-speech/)) for years now. People have been arrested over all sorts of comments, on all sorts of issues. It isn't peculiar to people talking about refugees.

Your bit about the Dutch has no bearing on the suggestion that this is somehow a reflection of a "Merkel/Zuckerberg pact" coming in to action, because whatever you can say of Merkel's influence (and I suspect it is extremely limited in this case), Zuckerberg hasn't done anything. It's an arrest, not Facebook's internal moderation.

[QE Harold Flair]

I don't need to know exactly what was said to know it's no break away from what has been going on in Britain (and as I said, perhaps even more so Scotland (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/scotland-no-country-for-free-speech/)) for years now. People have been arrested over all sorts of comments, on all sorts of issues. It isn't peculiar to people talking about refugees.

Absolute bollocks. If he was arrested for something similar to what the Dutch people were visited for, that is something new. Because they uttered not a single word which could be deemed offensive, even by today's standards.

Although I will commend you for bringing forth a spiffing article.

[Toby]

Because they uttered not a single word which could be deemed offensive, even by today's standards.

Do you think then that every other social media "abuse" arrest in the UK - and there have been dozens of them now - has been completely justifiable?

[John]

The police paid someone in Glasgow a visit for saying on Twitter that Glasgow should get involved during the 'London Riots'. Not for trying to organise a riot, just saying that Glasgow should get in on the action. That was, what, five years ago?

It's the one area of 'law enforcement' where we're considerably more lol than the Americans.

[QE Harold Flair]

Do you think then that every other social media "abuse" arrest in the UK - and there have been dozens of them now - has been completely justifiable?

By our terms, no. But I suspect they must have at least something that people could take as racist or threatening. Quite different to simply espousing opposition to mass immigration and/or refugees settling in your area, with no threatening language or an illusions to anything remotely 'ist'.

[John]

By our terms, no. But I suspect they must have at least something that poeople could take as racist or threatening. Quite different to simply espousing opposition to mass immigration and/or refugees settling in your area, with no threatening language or an illusions to anything remotely 'ist'.

You 'suspect', so you don't actually know yet you're stating with great certainty that this is something new? Surprising.

[Toby]

If it turns out he's said "There shouldn't be refugees in Bute", we'll agree, but if that's all he'd said half the country would be locked up by now.

[QE Harold Flair]

You 'suspect', so you don't actually know yet you're stating with great certainty that this is something new? Surprising.

Yes, I'm willing to change my mind if something akin to this can be aduced. But, since it's malready been admitted by Facebook that they are censoring anti-immigration posts (note - anti-immigration is the majority view), why should I need to bother? It's plainly obvious that this is a European political effort.

[QE Harold Flair]

If it turns out he's said "There shouldn't be refugees in Bute", we'll agree, but if that's all he'd said half the country would be locked up by now.

I hope that's all he said. That would be proper lol if it wasn't so incidious.

[Toby]

I hope that's all he said. That would be proper lol if it wasn't so incidious.

It seems incredibly unlikely though, doesn't it? Just search "Bute refugees" on Twitter and you'll see no shortage of disparaging remarks, including more than person suggesting they will be rapists, so I can't see him having been arrested without saying that made him stand out even among that.


688119188372639744

695589459744653312

691898109027356672

684705933885321217

690266073900388354

[QE Harold Flair]

Well the police can't arrest everyone, obviously. But we shall see, in time, what was said.

[Kikó]

Facebook can treat posts they don't like on their platform however they wish. Like and share.

[QE Harold Flair]

Facebook can treat posts they don't like on their platform however they wish. Like and share.

Of course they can. Hopefully people will vote with their feet. I don't use it, personally.

[Kikó]

People are more interested in sharing dog videos and urban myths than care about some random Dutch dude being banned from facebook.

[QE Harold Flair]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ec7_1455658631

Fight it.

[randomlegend]

Boydy made some jibe about me being into the Gamergate stuff, but I actually have no clue what went on.

You take issue with that video's portrayal of her, I presume?

[Boydy]

Jesus, stop crying about it already.

[QE Harold Flair]

Boydy strikes me as a completely emasculated person, in any case. I wouldn't worry what he (if I can say 'he') thinks. The portrayal of the trollope in this video is 100% accurate.

[Lewis]

Professional sad cunt Old Holborn has had about forty accounts deleted over the years, so it's not new.

[Boydy]

Boydy strikes me as a completely emasculated person, in any case. I wouldn't worry what he (if I can say 'he') thinks. The portrayal of the trollope in this video is 100% accurate.

You can't. I identify as non-binary. 'They', please.

[QE Harold Flair]

I wouldn't know. Bit sad knowing that, isn't it? :nono:

[QE Harold Flair]

You can't. I identify as non-binary. 'They', please.

I think you're more worthy of 'it'.

[Boydy]

I wouldn't know. Bit sad knowing that, isn't it? :nono:

Why did you delete your first post in response to Lewis to replace it with that which is barely any different?

[randomlegend]

Jesus, stop crying about it already.

I genuinely just wanted to know the other side of the story, you miserable twat.

[Boydy]

I think you're more worthy of 'it'.

Reported.

[Boydy]

I genuinely just wanted to know the other side of the story, you miserable twat.

You could have just asked about it then without crying about that time I threw an off-hand insult your way, you whiny wanker.

[randomlegend]

You could have just asked about it then without crying about that time I threw an off-hand insult your way, you whiny wanker.

The fact you made that jibe was relevant because it was why I asked you, since you obviously had a different view on the issue, you stupid cunt.

[QE Harold Flair]

Reported.

I hope you have. :)

[QE Harold Flair]

Why did you delete your first post in response to Lewis to replace it with that which is barely any different?

Because I wasn't happy with the first reply. Glad to see you've got a quick finger, though. You might need it one day.

[Boydy]

The fact you made that jibe was relevant because it was why I asked you, since you obviously had a different view on the issue, you stupid cunt.
I haven't really properly followed it. I just know it seems to have brought out the worst misogynist and homophobic trolls on the internet.

Didn't it start from some guy being pissed off that his girlfriend left him for some guy whose game she reviewed? He basically started some sort of internet hate campaign against her under the guise of her review being biased because she was shagging the game designer at the time. Then the two camps attracted the legions of internet MRAs and feminists.

It's all a load of shit, essnetially.

Edit: Just checked, it was actually the other way around. The girlfriend developed a game and was shagging a journalist so the ex said she got positive coverage because of that.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's all explained excellently in the video I posted.

And yes, she did. Her game was about depression and overcoming depression (lol). I encourage anyone else fascinated by this creature to read the link at the bottom of the page. A truly horrendous thing, this is.

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/0/08/ZoeQuinn.jpg

(lol)


https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Zoe_Quinn#Depression_Quest

[Boydy]

What's so lol about depression?

[Spoonsky]

It's not very manly.

[Lewis]

I think Godfrey Elfwick was a Gamergate product, so it wasn't all shit.

[QE Harold Flair]

What's so lol about depression?

I realise you'd probably love a text based game where you ring suicide hotlines, but I'm not sure you would be in the majority.

Some screenshots:

http://www.depressionquest.com/dq/ss2.jpg



http://www.depressionquest.com/dq/ss1.jpg



http://www.depressionquest.com/dq/pills3.jpg



Well I don't know about you, but I'm pre-ordering the sequel.

[QE Harold Flair]

More on this creature:


Soon after her shit game was rejected from Greenlight, someone on CWCwiki (http://sonichu.com/cwcki/Main_Page) hatched a plan to fuck with the virgins (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Virgins) on Wizardchan (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Wizardchan): He made two posts about how Zoe is a faggot and then linked her to it.
In response she did what every strong woman (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Oxymoron) and feminist (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Dyke) does and played the victim (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Victim). Receiving ass-pats from such distinct individuals as Anita Sarkeesian (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Anita_Sarkeesian) and that chick from Mighty No. 9 (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Mighty_No._9). Both of whom incidentally are sleeping with the people responsible for their internet success. Soon after some homo (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Some_Guy) called her house while jerking off into the phone (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Who_was_phone)... Obviously this was the work of the manchildren (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Tom_Preston) at Wizardchan! Only there is no proof and she gets this kind of shit every day anyway.
BUT WAIT! Was it really them? Fucking no. About two months after GamerGate (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/GamerGate) started, Hotwheels, the admin of 8chan (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/8chan) and formally of Wizardchan did an interview (http://knowyourmeme.com/blog/interviews/qa-with-fredrick-brennan-of-8chan) on Know Your Meme (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Know_Your_Meme) where he revealed that an IP check proves that Zoe was the one posting threats against herself on Wizardchan prior to the attack.
The real irony (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Irony) though? Most of the users on Wizardchan are fat (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Fat), kissless virgins in their late 30's (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Wizard) living in their mom's basement (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Basement_dweller) who actually DO have depression. So harassing them falsely over her game about suicide being rejected probably drove them all closer to suicide.

Social justice (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Social_justice) at work.




Stealing Donation Money

On Zoe's site for DQ it said that "a proportion" (did she mean "portion"?) of the proceeds from the game will go to iFred, a charity to help people suffering from depression. But after they were contacted by journalist Milo Yiannopoulos (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Milo_Yiannopoulos) they confirmed they don't know who she is.
Zoe quickly changed her story, claiming she was actually donating money to "National Suicide Prevention Lifeline". But someone quickly Emailed them as well and they confirmed that Zoe was lying. Then she went on to delete the mentions of both iFred and NSPL off of the page, forgetting that people had already capped it.
Later iFred confirmed that she DID donate money to them, so why she would delete their name off the DQ page is unclear. However, the NSPL donations are still unaccounted for.



Sabotaging 400k Game Jam/Reality show/Charity

In 2014 (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/2014) Zoe was invited to Matti Leshem's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matti_Leshem) new attempt at making a video game based reality (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Reality) show, where indie (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Indian) developers would create a game in 48 hours and the proceeds from it would go to charity, called "Polaris Game Jam". After spending the entire day acting like a cunt (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Cunt), annoying people, and calling JonTron (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Game_Grumps) a brony (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Brony), Zoe became jealous of all the money (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Money) going to charity instead of going to her. She immediately decided to sabotage the show (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Jew) and was quoted she wants Matti Leshem's "Head (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Head) on a stick (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Dick)".

Soon Nathan Grayson (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Clown) (with whom she was sleeping) sourced her and Robin Arnott (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Tit) (with whom she was also sleeping) in a Kotaku (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Tabloid) article slamming the event and accusing Leshem of being a misogynist (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Misogynist) for no reason. Other gaming news sites that didn't even attend the event ran the story, Leshem lost his job. Zoe also organized a half-assed protest for people wanting to renegotiate their contracts but asked others to be the public face of the events detractors so that it wouldn't be linked back to her. Still, Zoe almost got sued (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Lolsuit) and then opened her own site for a competing project on the very same day and all the journalists Zoe was friends with were instructed by her to, from then on, every time someone informs them that she is intentionally trying to bring down other gaming charity projects, suggest to them that they instead donate all the money they got to her fake charity project and promote it instead.


Zoe's Game Jam, however, has no start date, no end date, no venue, no details, never updates (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Scam) and all the money donated to it goes directly to her personal paypal (https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Paypal) account that she uses to ask for "tips" with on her other websites. So did Zoe intentionally sabotage a massive charity project that could have benefited the entire gaming community so that she could defraud people out of money for a fake knock-off of it? Probably.


https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/thumb/d/d6/ZoeQuinnRedditCherity.png/800px-ZoeQuinnRedditCherity.png



Oh and the slut also posed naked for a beasilaity website. Such a lovely girl.

[QE Harold Flair]

I genuinely just wanted to know the other side of the story, you miserable twat.

http://observer.com/2015/10/blame-gamergates-bad-rep-on-smears-and-shoddy-journalism/

A fairly short but concise piece on the whole issue.

[Kikó]

Good job we have you to call her a slut. Such an ugly angry word.

[QE Harold Flair]

Good job we have you to call her a slut. Such an ugly angry word.

That's correct, and such an ugly, angry, morally bankrupt woman deserves just that description.

[Kikó]

How can you get that angry about someone who has no direct influence in your life? Seems a waste of energy.

[QE Harold Flair]

How can you get that angry about someone who has no direct influence in your life? Seems a waste of energy.

How do you know how angry I am? I don't get so angry that I try to silence her.

[Kikó]

Is it because you're a right wing liberal?

[QE Harold Flair]

Is what because I'm a right wing liberal?

[Kikó]

Don't change the subject.

[QE Harold Flair]

You're the one who changed the subject.

[Kikó]

:rolleyes: answer the question. Why are you so angry at the gamer girl?

[QE Harold Flair]

I don't accept the premise of your question.

[phonics]

Holy shit. Harold's just learnt about Zoe Quinn. Welcome to 2 years ago.

I can't wait for him to start posting FeministFrequency videos. Maybe sometime around 2019 we can get onto Leigh Alexander.

I would like to add that Harold Bishop is in no way, shape or form an MRA but he just follows, watches videos and parrots what the MRA movement says. Don't take the red pill, Harold.

[QE Harold Flair]

Holy shit. Harold's just learnt about Zoe Quinn. Welcome to 2 years ago.

I can't wait for him to start posting FeministFrequency videos. Maybe sometime around 2019 we can get onto Leigh Alexander.

I would like to add that Harold Bishop is in no way, shape or form an MRA but he just follows, watches videos and parrots what the MRA movement says. Don't take the red pill, Harold.

I haven't just heard about her, I brought it up because RL wanted to know how it all started. And of course I am in favour of men's rights to have custody of their children, have a fair hearing in court etc. Who wouldn't be? I fear you're equating 'MRA' and the fringe sexists of the group in the same way idiots conflate UKIP and the BNP. One day your type will learn. One day.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I've recently realised that if you read all Harold's posts in Gareth Keenan's voice, they make a lot more sense.

[phonics]

The sexist fringe of the MRA's:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/04/article-2287759-1862D0DA000005DC-238_310x440.jpg

[QE Harold Flair]

I've recently realised that if you read all Harold's posts in Gareth Keenan's voice, they make a lot more sense.

Explain how that works. Oh hang on, it was a joke! :gay:

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EdHTm2fORU

This one gets very rowdy. The BLM twats make sure of that (around 10:00 for that).

[QE Harold Flair]

The quite splendid Douglas Murray at 13:00, firmly laying the smack down on the modern feminist/safe space twats.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLFehCMUQqk

[Toby]

Take the hint mate.

[Lewis]

I might stop reading Spiked if Brendan O'Neill insists on wearing those twat hats.

[QE Harold Flair]

Take the hint mate.

1. I'm not your mate
2. I shalleth do what I pleaseth.

[Toby]

Including ballsing upeth ye olde English, apparently.

[QE Harold Flair]

No shit.

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XPHIfgFwsY

:evictory::evictory::evictory::evictory::evictory: :evictory:

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfPhq1JiETg

[Lewis]

Two hours.

[QE Harold Flair]

Omg.

[Lewis]

If you added all the hours up (including what you watch at work), how much of this stuff would you say you watch a week?

[Yevrah]

I watch a fair few of Harold's videos, but Milo really is awful.

[QE Harold Flair]

If you added all the hours up (including what you watch at work), how much of this stuff would you say you watch a week?

Not that much. I like watching these kind of things while I'm eating or before bed, or as background if I'm playing FM.

[QE Harold Flair]

I watch a fair few of Harold's videos, but Milo really is awful.

He's most excellent. Very intelligent man. He is a bit of a troll sometimes, but his argumetns are sound.The way he dealt with these BLM and feminist twats trying to shut him down was the best I've seen yet.

[Boydy]

So intelligent he dropped out of uni twice.

[Yaysus]

What does that have to do with intelligence?

[QE Harold Flair]

Lots of people at uni are fucking idiots. That much is evident from that video.

[randomlegend]

Didn't you drop out of Uni, Boyd?

[Boydy]

Once, yes. Second time around I picked something better and more suitable.

You should really be able to learn from your mistakes first time around if you're going to go back to it.

[randomlegend]

I dropped out twice :)

[Toby]

Have you quit your course now? And what were you studying the first time?

[QE Harold Flair]

Once, yes. Second time around I picked something better and more suitable.

You should really be able to learn from your mistakes first time around if you're going to go back to it.

I think he's doing alright.

[QE Harold Flair]

https://privilegegrant.com/

:evictory:

[Spoonsky]

Lewis beat you to that one. It's putting me through the Ivy League.

[Lewis]

You would expect the applications stage to be trolled into making it unworkable.

[QE Harold Flair]

A professor at a prestigious Ohio college has kept her job despite spewing anti-Semitic hate on social media – including blaming Jews for 9/11 and the rise of ISIS.

Joy Karega, an assistant professor of ‘rhetoric and composition’ at Oberlin College, claimed in a series of Facebook posts that Israel planned the September 11 attacks in 2001 and the Charlie Hebdo massacre in January last year.

She also posted conspiracy theories that alleged the Jewish state’s national intelligence agency formed the Islamic State terror group.

However, in its response, Oberlin College did not condemn Karega’s posts and added that she has the right to express ‘her personal views’.

According to Karega’s profile on the private liberal arts college’s website, she received her PhD from the University of Louisville in 2014.

At Oberlin, she has recently taught courses entitled ‘Writing for Social Justice’ and ‘Negotiating Language, Culture and Power’.

She had also written a book which ‘draws upon archival research and oral history and historicizes the political literacy education of the Black Liberation Front International’ – a black student organization at Michigan State University from 1968 to 1975.

Now, she claims she is working on another book called ‘Conspiratorial Political Literacies: Rhetorical Practice, Contested Knowledge, and Subversive Politics' which will include her thoughts on the backlash she has faced since her Facebook posts were reported in The Tower this week.

She posted a graphic on January 13 last year – shortly after the Charlie Hebdo attacks – appearing to show an ISIS militant pulling off a mask of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the site reported.

The militant is seen with a Star of David tattoo and the acronym JSIL Israel – presumably a Jewish version of ISIL as the terror group are sometimes called.

The text superimposed on the image suggests the murder of cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo’s headquarters in Paris was a ‘false flag’ aimed to stop France supporting Palestine.

Along with the picture, Karega wrote: ‘This ain’t even hard [sic]. They unleased Mossad on France and it’s clear why.’

Later on the same day, Karega reportedly posted a claim that Netanyahu attended a rally for free speech in Paris ‘uninvited’.

'He would have condemned those views, even if he defended her right to express them.'

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, director of the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center, an Israeli-based civil rights organization, told Fox News: 'This is the worst kind of anti-Semitic rhetoric.

'It is not acceptable for the dean to hide behind academic freedom and claim this is freedom of speech.'

'She is not a tenured professor. She needs to be thrown off campus immediately.'

In recent months, however, students at the $50,000-a-year college have expressed concerns that anti-Semitism is becoming a problem at the school.

The student newspaper, the Oberlin Review, says Jews do not feel welcome, quoting one student, who said: ‘I quickly learned that, at Oberlin, love for my own nation (Israel) was not something I could express.’

The same student reportedly later transferred out of the school due to the ‘toxic climate’ regarding Israel.

Last month, hundreds of alumni and students published an open letter to Oberlin President Martin Krislov saying the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanction Israel) movement has become considerably active on the college campus.

‘Several student organizations at Oberlin have assumed the role as the mouthpiece of the BDS movement, which claims to be a defender of Palestinian rights, but whose inflammatory language falsely portraying Israel as an illegitimate, colonialist and murderous regime demonstrates that its primary goal is to demonize the Jewish state,’ the letter said.

As Oberlin students and alumni representing a diversity of views on Israel, we accept criticism of its leadership and policies. However, we do not believe Israel should be singled out for condemnation and we object to questioning its right to exist.

'We also abhor the tactics of Oberlin’s pro-BDS student organizations that intimidate, threaten, and coerce Jewish students, which we have seen and heard in numerous written and spoken reports.

Daily Mail Online has contacted Karega and Oberlin College for further comment


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7e6_1456877968

[Lewis]

Good for Oberlin College.

[QE Harold Flair]

Anti semitism isn't a good thing, is it?

[Lewis]

Free speech is.

[Spoonsky]

I knew you were going to say that. In those exact words.

[Lewis]

:cool:

[QE Harold Flair]

Free speech is.

I'm not asking for her to be prosecuted. People with such demented views have no place being university professors. Free speech doesn't absolve you from the consequences of what you say, which may include losing your job.

[Lewis]

You might lose certain jobs, but if you start telling professors what they can think and say (personally or professionally) then you've ruined academic inquiry.

[QE Harold Flair]

They can think it all they like - if you start making those views public then your position becomes untenable. How could a Jewish student feel comfortable being taught by an anti-semite?

[Disco]

This seems an odd line for Harold to take.

[Lewis]

They can think it all they like - if you start making those views public then your position becomes untenable. How could a Jewish student feel comfortable being taught by an anti-semite?

There would presumably be a safe space for them to go and cry in if it got too much.

[QE Harold Flair]

This seems an odd line for Harold to take.

In what way?

[QE Harold Flair]

There would presumably be a safe space for them to go and cry in if it got too much.

But you agreed that in certain jobs they would be fired. Which jobs are they?

I wouldn't allow the leader of the KKK to be a professor at a university and this is no different.

[phonics]

Well this is an unexpected turn until you remember Harold's all for free speech until it's speech he disagrees with.

[Lewis]

But you agreed that in certain jobs they would be fired. Which jobs are they?

I wouldn't allow the leader of the KKK to be a professor at a university and this is no different.

If you agree to sign a code of conduct regulating your behaviour then you could presumably be sacked for mouthing off. But since academic inquiry depends on the absolute freedom to say what you like, I'm guessing they never signed such a thing (if they did then lol).

The Grand Dragon of the Klan might be a great mathematician, in which case you could say that their beliefs are irrelevant to the subject matter. Then all you're doing is preventing people learning from a great mathematician. Meanwhile, your humanities departments are filled with communists, and your senior research fellows are all associated with murderous foreign policies. It's so much easier to leave this stuff out of it.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well this is an unexpected turn until you remember Harold's all for free speech until it's speech he disagrees with.

And I still am for free speech, by law. I never said speech doesn't have consequences.

[QE Harold Flair]

If you agree to sign a code of conduct regulating your behaviour then you could presumably be sacked for mouthing off. But since academic inquiry depends on the absolute freedom to say what you like, I'm guessing they never signed such a thing (if they did then lol).

The Grand Dragon of the Klan might be a great mathematician, in which case you could say that their beliefs are irrelevant to the subject matter. Then all you're doing is preventing people learning from a great mathematician. Meanwhile, your humanities departments are filled with communists, and your senior research fellows are all associated with murderous foreign policies. It's so much easier to leave this stuff out of it.

Being a mathematician has no social connotations. This creature was paid to spread her ideas about society, specifically.

[Lewis]

Which she is doing, whether you agree with them or not.

[QE Harold Flair]

Which she is doing, whether you agree with them or not.

So you think the spreading of racist ideas by professors in universities is acceptable? The fact she is a mentalist who clearly doesn't know how to decipher the truth should stop her from any teaching postion as it is.

[Lewis]

It's 'acceptable' insofar as she shouldn't be sacked for it, but I'm sure it won't do her credibility (and career prospects) any good.

Should his Stalinism have seen Eric Hobsbawm run out of academic life? What about people who criticise immigration? We wouldn't sack them, but I bet the 'liberal fascists' who run universities would like to see them silenced. The same goes for the climate change 'deniers'. You might have set the OUTRAGE bar a bit higher than most people, but it's still going to silence people who stray from some arbitrary line.

[QE Harold Flair]

That depends on whether 'Stalinism' is inherently racist and whether what he believes is so utterly stupid as to undermine his academic creibility.

I wouldn't want to silence anyone. Sacking academics who do not display any critical thinking is not silencing them - it's preventing them from undertaking an important role they are not suitable for.

[Lewis]

It's Stalinism. Not inherently racist, but inherently murderous. Why is that better? What if somebody opposed abortion on solely religious lines? That isn't violent or racist, but it would presumably fail your 'critical thinking' test. Maybe it's just better to leave the subjectivity out of it and judge people on their teaching and research.

[Boydy]

That depends on whether 'Stalinism' is inherently racist and whether what he believes is so utterly stupid as to undermine his academic creibility.

I wouldn't want to silence anyone. Sacking academics who do not display any critical thinking is not silencing them - it's preventing them from undertaking an important role they are not suitable for.

What about professors who are religious? Are they lacking in the ability to think critically?

Edit: Should have read to the end first. Lewis has covered it already.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's Stalinism. Not inherently racist, but inherently murderous. Why is that better? What if somebody opposed abortion on solely religious lines? That isn't violent or racist, but it would presumably fail your 'critical thinking' test. Maybe it's just better to leave the subjectivity out of it and judge people on their teaching and research.

It probably isn't better. I just don't think teachers should be allowed to teach if they do not believe their students are equal. If someone really did believe that genocide was correct then yes, they would also have no place in academia.

[QE Harold Flair]

What about professors who are religious? Are they lacking in the ability to think critically?

Edit: Should have read to the end first. Lewis has covered it already.

Covered it stupidly, yes. Religions deal with the 'spiritual' life. Anyone in academia who is so fervently religious that it spills into racism, homophobia and any other ism would also be found out those means. I'm not even sure what a 'Stalinist' is? Can anyone name one?

[Toby]

It probably isn't better. I just don't think teachers should be allowed to teach if they do not believe their students are equal. If someone really did believe that genocide was correct then yes, they would also have no place in academia.

What about the many respected academics who supported eugenics in the early half of the 20th century?

[Lewis]

What if you believe that women are inherently less capable of excelling at certain subjects?

[QE Harold Flair]

What if you believe that women are inherently less capable of excelling at certain subjects?

That tallies with the evidence, broadly. And the reverse is also true in other subjects. Although it's not true of all women or all men. Butch lesbians may well make just as good mechanics, for example. It's a bit too far to say it's inherent, but the strongest and fastest man will always be stronger and faster than the most athletic woman. That's just a fact.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Butch lesbians may well make just as good mechanics, for example.

What videos have you been renting?

[QE Harold Flair]

What videos have you been renting?

You still rent videos, do you?

[Lewis]

That tallies with the evidence, broadly. And the reverse is also true in other subjects. Although it's not true of all women or all men. Butch lesbians may well make just as good mechanics, for example. It's a bit too far to say it's inherent, but the strongest and fastest man will always be stronger and faster than the most athletic woman. That's just a fact.

I'm not sure where strength and speed comes into the classroom, so I'll go with what Ital was writing on the second page. If he's right then anybody who thinks birds can't hack computer science has no place in a university. If he isn't then he has no place in a university, because he is refusing to think critically. What a mess we're ending up with.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well they don't. It's just an example of a difference that is inherent. Let's not go over all that again. And nobody has said girls 'can't hack computer science'. Most can't and, in comparison to men, most won't. Just as most men will never be the stay at home parent. Because we're different.

[Lewis]

So if somebody thinks otherwise are they somebody who (like the original woman) 'clearly doesn't know how to decipher the truth'? Should they be prevented from 'undertaking an important role they are not suitable for'?

[QE Harold Flair]

So if somebody thinks otherwise are they somebody who (like the original woman) 'clearly doesn't know how to decipher the truth'? Should they be prevented from 'undertaking an important role they are not suitable for'?

If somebody thinks men and women are equal at everything? No, why would that stop them? It has nowhere neat the pernicious consequences and is not on the same level of stupidity as believing 'the Jews did it' - something I hardly need tell a self-reported historian.

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eckDObOlSwk

:evictory: 29:30 for a very satisfying beatdown of a feminist twat.

[Yaysus]

people who are gonna watch the video:













Well this is an unexpected turn until you remember Harold's all for free speech until it's speech he disagrees with.

sounds like everyone in TTH, to be honest

[Lewis]

If somebody thinks men and women are equal at everything? No, why would that stop them? It has nowhere neat the pernicious consequences and is not on the same level of stupidity as believing 'the Jews did it' - something I hardly need tell a self-reported historian.

Who decides the 'pernicious consequences'? Some people say having 'Milo' speaking at their university puts people in danger, so the self-reported historian knows that people can't be trusted to censor things.

[John Arne]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/03/man-removed-easyjet-flight-luton-prayer-message-phone

This is crazy. Firstly, I kind of understand why someone would report him if they only saw bits of the message.. 'ISI..pray' perhaps you can understand why the other passenger panicked. However, what is inexcusable is the police them clearing him but the Easyjet pilot refusing to let him board. What utter bullshit - that pilot needs to be told to fuck off and let a paying customer board his flight.

[QE Harold Flair]

Who decides the 'pernicious consequences'? Some people say having 'Milo' speaking at their university puts people in danger, so the self-reported historian knows that people can't be trusted to censor things.

The law does, since there is a law against anti-semitism. Those people who complain about Milo would have to demonstrate what that is. So far, they have failed. And it's besides the point, anyway, since I already said she could come as a guest speaker if the students wanted her. I wouldn't care if she was a professor of something for which her silly views did not matter. It would be stupid to have the KKK leader as a race relations officer, wouldn't it?

[Lewis]

There isn't a law against anti-Semitism in America.

It would also be stupid to prevent a Klan leader from becoming a race relations officer. One idea would be to judge somebody on their actual ability to carry out an occupation, rather than what you think of their 'silly views'. If she starts straying from her normal teaching responsibilities to lecture in conspiracy theories then have a word; but there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that she has done that. But lol at that attitude towards your freedom. Remember when the government tried to ban 'religious hatred' and Rowan Atkinson and the National Secular Society campaigned against it because the legislation was loose enough to silence legitimate criticism and satire? Presumably you would have been happy to abide by that definition of 'free speech by law' had it passed.

[QE Harold Flair]

There isn't a law against anti-Semitism in America.

It would also be stupid to prevent a Klan leader from becoming a race relations officer. One idea would be to judge somebody on their actual ability to carry out an occupation, rather than what you think of their 'silly views'. If she starts straying from her normal teaching responsibilities to lecture in conspiracy theories then have a word; but there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that she has done that. But lol at that attitude towards your freedom. Remember when the government tried to ban 'religious hatred' and Rowan Atkinson and the National Secular Society campaigned against it because the legislation was loose enough to silence legitimate criticism and satire? Presumably you would have been happy to abide by that definition of 'free speech by law' had it passed.

Why would it be stupid? How could someone with that character perform that role? Your free speech absolutism falls apart in these kind of scenarios. I'm not saying they don't have the right to apply, you understand.

[Lewis]

What if they only joined the Klan after a year of being the best race relations officer ever? What if they were a member anyway, got the job somehow, and then did the job as requested? Seeing as you can't really legislate for all such eventualities and/or for things Harold approves of, it's best to allow people to do and say what they like until it can be proven to have a negative influence on their occupation.

[QE Harold Flair]

Then they should be sacked. Not by force of law, but because they wouldn't be able to perform their role adequately. I'm not sure how you can claim being a KKK leader wouldn't be a negative influence on a race relations officer. Weirdo.

[Lewis]

In my bullshit scenario they are performing the role adequately. More-than adequately in fact. Klan membership has brought a sense of purpose to their lives that has improved workplace productivity dramatically. What do you sack them for now?

[phonics]

Before you answer that Harold, remember how ridiculous you thought it was when BNP supporters were being fired from their jobs for their controversial beliefs.

[QE Harold Flair]

Before you answer that Harold, remember how ridiculous you thought it was when BNP supporters were being fired from their jobs for their controversial beliefs.

Yes, noprmal jobs. I wouldn't think she should be fired from being a sheet metal worker......

[QE Harold Flair]

In my bullshit scenario they are performing the role adequately. More-than adequately in fact. Klan membership has brought a sense of purpose to their lives that has improved workplace productivity dramatically. What do you sack them for now?

Yes, it really is a bullshit scenario. What about a convicted child rapist working as a nanny? Any problems? In my bullshit scenario he's been completely reformed.

[Lewis]

He's also got a serious criminal record. If the productive Klan worker has a similar record (for race-based assault for example) you would be well within your rights to exclude them. But they don't, so you're sanctioning them for their beliefs.