because I know how hate speech laws in the UK work? And the video was clearly promoting abhorrent views no matter how shitty the "joke" is? Jokes are supposed to be funny?
It's not me defending anything, its me being aware of how things actually work. It doesn't matter if you care or not: the video was and is considered hate speech under most laws regardless of its absurdity. Before you go "oh comedians do this all the time" yes.. comedians have jokes, they don't say "gas the jews" and call it a day. Unless your idea of a joke is saying random racist shit for the giggles. But considering by how you're defending this I wouldn't be surprised.
did you even watch the pug video?
count dankula is an internet comedian. he wanted to turn the pug into the least-cute thing he could thing of to fuck with his girlfriend (this is stated at the start of the video), so that's what he did. You don't have to find it funny or tasteful.
But the fact he was arrested, found guilty (not by a court of his peers I might add) and now awaiting sentencing, is absolutely an attack on freedom of speech and expression. I can't believe that a first world country is allowing something like to happen.
So, it's not racist if the joke is funny? Do I have to make the judge and jury laugh when I'm brought to court on unfunny racist joke charges
Oh lordy, I hope you don't ever actually have to read how said free speech laws work.
The joke literally relies on the fact that "gas the jews" is an awful thing to say. The entire thing hinges on it and it wouldn't even be a joke if the sentence the dog responded to wasn't offensive. The punchline is that NAZIS ARE BAD PEOPLE. If we are willing to ignore the context of the video like that we can fine and jail people for a shitload of stuff suddenly. Is the Mitchell and Webb sketch "Are we the baddies?" now offensive and liable to fines because the actors are wearing nazi uniforms?
This whole debacle has done fuckloads more to promote the alt-right than if everyone had just ignored the video altogether and is just a massive waste of government resources.
I hope that the UK soon fixes their laws so that way people are not thrown in jail or house arrests for jokes.
And laws can be something called "unjust".
Blind obedeience to laws and the government is a scary thing, because governments frequently do fuck up and make up stupid/unjust laws. The U.S. is full of them on the Federal, State, and Municipal level. This isn't being edgy, it's just reality. There are unjust laws in the world and we should be working towards fixing that.
now this is a more interesting discussion but heres the ringer: these laws tend to work because if they were gone something like say: the ku klux klan could get away by saying oh we're only doing it for comedic purposes(everything barring the actual literal lynchings that is, that ones another ballpark). This can happen, and it most likely will, so its not just a solution that entails "oh we should get rid of these laws they dont work or add an exception for jokes" because then we have to legally define what a joke is.
For now, this works, in my personal opinion.
You keep conveniently forgetting he was actually clear of hate speech laws so the judge got desperate and decided to ignore all context of his shitty joke and nailed him under some vague law regarding "menacing content"
You know that in the U.S. there aren't actually hate speech laws, right? Right?
What we have are a series of court cases which have set a precendent that the only stuff that isn't protected by Free Speech in the U.S. is pretty much anything that will immediately cause harm. I.E.: "Let's go lynch the black family from across town right now.", inciting someone to fight you, things of that nature. What is protected is everything else - and even then it is contextual because if you say "Let's go lynch the black family across town right now" for some reason in a joke, I can bet that you wouldn't be arrested for any reason.
Funnily enough this works, because for all the U.S.'s faults, there is a great emphasis placed on freedom of speech and expression. For good reason. A healthy society is one in which all members can express their viewpoints, even if those viewpoints are abhorrent. An unhealthy society starts repressing views, usually starts with the interest of the public good. But that is not a power I'd trust to the government - dictating speech at such a level. It can and will be abused by those in power.
Possibly me? I recall writing an explanation as to what C-16 actually entails (and what numerous experts in law analysed it to be, rather than this fucking dude who can't string a single sentence together without using flowery words). The bill would only impose actual legal punishment for clear cut cases of discrimination against someone. Using the wrong pronouns, even repeatedly, is unlikely to lead to prosecution because an individual doing that to another is just fucking hard to pin down as a hate crime.
And individual starting up an entire campaign of harassment against a trans person, calling for them to never be recognised by their pronouns of choice and encouraging others to do the same would be met with legal action. As it's clearly targeted harassment over a protected class. A boss refusing to acknowledge an employee by their preferred gender would likely be met with legal action as its workplace discrimination.
Essentially Peterson is a collosal hack who doesn't understand law remotely yet feels he knows exactly what the bill is about despite a number of legal practitioners pointing out it's wrong. And his fanbase are too vapid to do any research themselves so they bought his "SJEWS!!! RUINING THE WORLD!!!" narrative hook line and sinker.
good thing i used the word "something like" and not "the klan in the US which has hate speech laws".
You actually don't understand hate speech laws because if you did you'd realise he didn't break any. Or are you just doing this on purpose for an excuse to continue acting like a smug prick?
you mean the law designed to discourage hateful speech over communication platforms is not a law about hateful speech?
Way to shove words into people's mouths, dimwit.
jokes making fun of nazis with examples of what a nazi would say isn't illegal no
That's what I said. It's not that he's conservative, but a lot of conservatives do latch on to him, like I said
That doesn't really make much sense though, but I'm happy that you think that, I guess.
Also fun fact, I actually really like one of those books
It seems to Mud it's impossible to not act like a smug prick, Every question when someone disagrees with Mud either he/she acts like an asshole always trying to mock the person disagreeing with.
That joke was made to mock nazis, not the other way around, and when in Court they Ignored the whole context of the Joke.
I have a question Mud, Can you try not to sound like an asshole in every answer you do? Is it impossible? Because when people say they dont like you, its not because of your political opinion (only a couple of idiots think this way) but because you sound like a jackass. Why is it that you always have to act in a condescending way?
I think my favourite thing about Jordan Peterson is how many on the right completely sweep away the entirety of academia simply through virtue of it not sharing their opinions (the majority of the time), but as soon as someone with any academic credentials appeared (albeit, in a completely different area to the are he predominantly talks about), they lapped it up and started appealing to his academic authority instead of refuting the arguments made against him. It's one of my favourite ironies from the supporters of Peterson.
It's a long word that most people have probably heard and sounds vaguely important. Honestly if it weren't for the fact that Peterson is an antidisestablishmentarianist I wouldn't be surprised if he started making conspiracy theories about antidisestablishmentarianism. He really likes misusing large words to sound important.
If you want to talk about the pug there's a thread for that. The pug thing is only tangentially related to this since it's about an outdated useless law vs c-16 which is a good law that expands our human rights but was lied about so now it's skunked.
A counter to your arguments is included in the video, he shows the image of Bill Whatcott and his activism (but doesn't really explain it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Whatcott
This is (I guess?) the bar for speech in Canada. To get convicted of hate speech you gotta be:
placing flyers with dismembered foetuses in mailboxes
trying to ban homosexuality and abortion.
showing disguting images of and lying about diseases "caused by gay sex"
distributing flyers with a real life decapitated girl to incite hate against muslims.
doing a straight pride parade that turned out to be just an anti-gay parade.
harassing people going to the abortion clinic.
After this, the courts actually couldn't figure out what they should do with him and had to escalate it to the supreme court.
To me that means that this is like the dividing line for our laws.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
