• My Appeal Has Been Rejected (Count Dankula)
    65 replies, posted
yeah it went something like this i recall uk government: stop saying nazi stuff dank:hey no fair only joke nazis:yeah uk that's not nazi stuff, we'd know (ps they want to fight this law because they like saying nazi stuff) dank:hey thanks nazis you're cool i wanna eat at your lunch table uk:charges a now nazi with saying nazi stuff getting charged for it was obviously dumb but then the dude did everything in his power to make it look justified
That's all fair to say, I'm not arguing whether or not he is in fact racist, but my question is should holding racist views be illegal? As disgusting as neo-nazi/racist/general bigotry ideas are, should the government arrest people for holding those views?
I won't disagree there but it literally should not have mattered from my understanding.
If he hadn't continued being a cunt during his appeal he likely could have gotten the charge dismissed. But, nope, he got fined for being a cunt, tried to fight it by being a cunt, and, what should come as a surprise to no one, just being a cunt didn't pay off.
Do you have any evidence that the only people who stood up for him were neo-nazis? Because the way I remember it, a majority on Facepunch also stood up for him, and this forum is pretty left leaning. Furthermore, I think plenty of places on Reddit that weren't literal propaganda subs also did. So I don't buy that excuse for one damn second. And even IF that was the case, how can a reasonable adult human being just look at this situation and go: "Well I got into legal trouble for making a dark joke online, and the only people who supported me were nazis. Guess I better join them and advocate for white power", like what the fuck? Seems a little far-fetched if he didn't have these convictions to begin with. So by all means, speak out against the case, but please don't try to apologize for Dankula. He doesn't deserve the verdict but he doesn't deserve your sympathy either.
https://diversitymachtfrei.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/tumblr_inline_o6937npvei1sx29xo_540.jpg Man what a fucking nazi. Just straight up goose stepping down the streets spouting racial superiority propaganda, yessir, look at him go. I think y'all need to question your sources of news if they're painting a lifelong far lefty and former communist as alt right neo nazi embodyment of transcendent evil or whatever the fuck it is this week.
FP was supportive but the point is more what i said in the post you quoted "(and public figures you support, who might actually be able to help)". To use another example, Facepunch was majority pro-gamergate despite being mostly left leaning but the majority of the left still came out anti, one of the reasons i visit this forum is that people here do tend to have more nuanced political views than "left/right" which is very appreciated but also somewhat uncommon. However, how a facepunch thread develops and facepunch.com's group consensus (or whatever reddit sub your talking about, do tell me what it is because afaik every political reddit sub is a propoganda sub now) probably isn't enough to count as an actual alternative to people with followings contacting the guy directly to help and support him, unless a large number of us went out to form a funding drive, provide legal counsel or somehow a high profile facepuncher wanted to get into the news defending him. He didn't "join them and advocate for white power" unless you're one of those people who literally think UKIP is nazis and at that point you're so far gone we'd need to have a whole other discussion, or we're going to start taking comedy out of context.
Why'd this case have to happen to this idiot? He seems to be doing everything in his power to make the prosecution look justified. This is not what this case needed. Ah yes, him being a former communist really speaks to his sound political judgement. Being a certain kind of idiot in the past doesn't protect you from being a different kind of idiot in the future. He would be far from the only case of a dumb radical turning into a seemingly contrary brand of dumb radical. And my judgement of Count Dankula is based largely upon the material he puts out.
you do know who UKIP are, right?
Are you... really trying to say that his beliefs couldn't have changed? That he couldn't have had a shift in views and radicalized? What? Dankula has gone on record repeatedly denouncing communism and communist beliefs in recent years. A former communist idiot suddenly being a current nationalist idiot isn't that much of a stretch, you realize. I wasn't aware that all that was needed to completely destroy any criticism of a person who's been accused and has evidence of hanging out with pro-fascist individuals and advocating for a european right-radical nationalistic conservative populist party was to have an old tattoo from years ago.
It's not really a police state and more nanny state gone too far. The state is more like an overbearing mother trying to make sure all the children play nice. I'm sure this guy is very much a piece of shit, but that doesn't change that fact that what he's being prosecuted for is absolutely ridiculous and an unnecessary infringement on peoples freedom. It shouldn't be the governments job to protect peoples feelings.
i will never like the idea of implicitly handing a metaphorical gun to the government by way of precedence when it comes to free speech. it is easy to get people to support that precedence when it is a dirtbag being prosecuted, but governments are not static and you can bet your ass that this precedence will be used in the future to stifle positive political activism when that activism becomes inconvenient.
It really feels kinda gross how quickly turned on CountDankula. I mean that isn't exactly a hot take, the dude hasn't helped his position at all since the Nazi Pug trial. But like... Does that actually matter? Like at all? When looking at the precedence that CountDankula case sets, does it matter at fucking all what neo nazi types he hangs out with, or what dumb political party he shills? Do people really consider disavowing him to be of higher priority than the misuse of justice that brought him into the spotlight in the first place? I think it sucks that his appeal was rejected, he'll be running out of reasonable options soon and I'm 100% behind his "don't back down on this issue" approach. I find it admirable. I may not find him admirable, or the people he associates with or the ideologies he shills, but that shouldn't really be important right now.
I'm really curious as to who these neo-Nazis are that everyone in this thread is referring to.
I don't give a shit if hes a nazi or not, this is an actual case of Freedom of Speech being shit on. Not like the times where youtube removes someone they didn't like etc. Its not who the person is, its what it steps up for what is allowed to be said and not said. What happens if a far-right government gets in and you hurt one of its members feelings in someway? Well, under they way they charged him, you might just go to jail for making fun of them since it might offend them.
Wasn't a case which needed to be pursued in the first place tbh, no matter your thoughts on Dankula (personally I felt it was just another attention grab good for a five second chuckle) if this had just been left alone it wouldn't have blown up as much as it did. Courts should have used common fucking sense.
Any punishment he's getting now is his own choice. He's choosing to drag this thru the court, he'll be paying far more for the laywers than the original fine and the donations he's got will easily have covered the fine. If he goes to prison like he said he would in the video its because he's choosing to do so, he's choosing to make himself into a bigger victim. IMO he's doing this because it's boosted his visibility immensely. Before he was an obscure youtube person, now he's listed alongside Alex Jones, Lauren Southern and Sargon of Akkad - people with millions of subscribers who make their careers peddling "muh freederm of spurch".
so then he had no choice to drag this in the courts because it was unjust in the first place?
This is about freedom of speech. That what this issue is literally about, yet you make the assumption that the guy is only doing it for the views. If you agree that he shouldn't have gotten in trouble in the first place, then why shouldn't he fight it? He claims that he is attempting to fight the law so no one in the future will get arrested for similar crimes. He may very well be a terrible person, but this is a bad law, and it is a good thing that he is challenging that law.
Sure he had a choice. He was given a buncha money by peeps, he had a choice to use that money to pay the fine and bring the whole thing to a close, he opted not to because he wanted to make a statement/raise his publicity. A lawyer costs like £250 per hour. So his fine was between 3 and 4 hours of a lawyers time. I don't think he shoulda been fined £800 quid and I think he should have been allowed an appeal but peeps should be pragmatic and not make things difficult for yourself so you can whinge about how difficult it is. If you choose to make a pigs ear of things legally, drag it thru the courts and refuse to pay fines+the penalties for not doing so, then imo you shouldn't complain about the pigs ear you've gotten yourself into - but of course it's the smart thing for him to do because it's made him sorta famous, and using people money to martyr himself is a much more "anti pc warrior" move than using the money to pay fines and then campaigning for reform - and it keeps him in the spotlight.
but if it's unjust than frankly he doesn't have a choice but to fight it. To go "well he could have just paid it", what good would that do? Would that prevent similar cases in the future? No, it probably wouldn't. You should fight injustice when it happens to you.
Sure you have a choice. He has the means to pay the fine, hell it'd save money on lawyers which could instead be used to fund a political campaign or make a fund to help out other people in this situation. Paying the fine doesn't mean not fighting it. He's choosing to not pay the fine and choosing the spend the money on lawyers to drag it through the courts, choosing to escalate it as much as possible because, imo, he favours the attention this is getting him. The court should absolutely give him an appeal but he doesn't need to make things difficult for himself to make that argument - and frankly it probably won't help his case (at the court) by doing so. What this does help however is his career as an anti-pc warrior, not coz it helps him make actual meaningful change, but it sure gives him lots of supporters and publicity.
Fighting it in court is probably the best thing he can do. None of the parties in this country care about these kinds of issues so the best thing to do is to try and set a court precedent
The idea is that if the punishment goes through, it sets a precedent that can be used to silence people in the future. If he successfully fights the verdict, he prevents that precedent from being set. I personally doubt that he will be successful, and I'm unsure he's going about it the best way, but he's certainly fighting for something true and not just for attention.
Problem is that this logic is basically exactly the sort of loop the far right wants you to get caught in, because it allows them to push their agenda better and with less criticism in the short term. A lot of far right/alt rhetoric works around the same core dynamic: 1. Hide behind a cause or a concept almost universally agreed upon as a good thing in the country you live in 2. Pick the broadest, most comically stupid targets to be opposed with (make them up if you don't find any) 3. Seek ambiguous situations where you are the victim in some degree, and use your victim status to push your agenda A good example of how this dynamic operates is to look at how often the alt right pretends to be fighting for "freedom of speech" while simultaneously claiming any criticism leveled against them is thought crime. Also usually comes with the fabrication of a mostly fictional, entirely exaggerated opponent to make their own claims seem to have better ground (the SJWs, the leftists, the social marxists, you name it). They want to create controversy, set themselves up as victims, and then go "look how unjustly society is treating me, it could happen to you". And it so happens that Count Dankula's bullshit fits very nicely into this as well. The guy pretty much instantly started to wave around free speech/the sanctity of context as his sole defense (more on context later). Although he had little choice in that regard and he ended up just taking advantage of the situation, the legal case he was thrown into was handled by a tosser who was comical in his stupidity. And of course, as soon as the verdicts started dropping that he was going to get sentenced, he did shit like the UKIP video and began literally fucking asking people to vote far right in response to his legal troubles. All of this because he set himself up to stir controversy with a video which does fall under the protection of freedom of speech, but is still just about questionable enough to start shit. Shit in which he could act as the underdog so he could push his agenda real fucking hard. Far right shitlords are kind of experts at taking advantage of golden opportunities with minimal effort to make them happen and Dankula is no exception. And ultimately, Dankula's idiotic use of the method has lead to his use of context as an excuse to backfire pretty spectacularly. Used to be that the context of the video was just that a guy made his dog do something funny related to nazi germany and it was more or less just an innocent joke. Now the context is that a guy who votes UKIP and surrounds himself with neo-nazi or alt-right figures likes to make references to the same dictatorship his buddies love so much. So no, I'm not "worse than a neo nazi" for thinking Dankula had it coming with his bullshit. He's a fucking moron who set himself up to act and look like a goddamn clown to push a vile and filthy agenda and by now he deserves every last bit of shit that's happened to him because he was too air-brained to let it go when he should have. Freedom of speech is a guardrail to protect you from legal shit and oppression but a guardrail won't do much good if you climb on top of it and jump off into the void in a swan dive.
Steve told me the conservatives were SJWs once
It's almost like the system has treated him unfairly and in order to not allow the system to do it again, he's forced to make things difficult for himself.
But in this case, Dankula really is a victim of the government taking away his free speech. Your argument, I feel, makes the case for fighting his verdict even more, because by this logic the alt-right has the most recruiting power the more they can look like victims. Normally to use this tactic they have to do really contrived bullshit that is totally transparent. In this case his cause is so clearly in the right, his opponents so obviously in the wrong, and he is so unambiguously a victim, that I have no choice but to support him (in this case) even if he came out and confirmed that he's a straight up neo-Nazi. If he's really pushing an agenda, then this is going to really allow him to push that agenda because he's right. Or to put it another way, when the UK is okay with fining people for jokes, not only do they now have limited freedom of speech, but they have empowered the alt-right agenda by giving it situations where they are undeniably victims.
I'm behind him on that he shouldn't face legal action for the nazi pug thing. He's still a dumbfuck and a useful idiot for fascists
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.