|
What is the best flav... you all know what this question is: This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Labour |
|
907 | 49.92% |
| Theresa May Team (Conservative) |
|
48 | 2.64% |
| Liberal Democrats |
|
31 | 1.71% |
| UKIP |
|
13 | 0.72% |
| Plaid Cymru |
|
25 | 1.38% |
| Green |
|
22 | 1.21% |
| Scottish Socialist Party |
|
12 | 0.66% |
| Scottish Conservative Party |
|
1 | 0.06% |
| Scottish National Party |
|
59 | 3.25% |
| Some Kind of Irish Unionist |
|
4 | 0.22% |
| Alliance / Irish Nonsectarian |
|
3 | 0.17% |
| Some Kind of Irish Nationalist |
|
36 | 1.98% |
| Misc. Far Left Trots |
|
35 | 1.93% |
| Misc. Far Right Fash |
|
8 | 0.44% |
| Monster Raving Loony |
|
49 | 2.70% |
| Space Navies Party |
|
39 | 2.15% |
| Independent / Single Issue |
|
2 | 0.11% |
| Can't Vote |
|
188 | 10.35% |
| Won't Vote |
|
8 | 0.44% |
| Spoiled Ballot |
|
15 | 0.83% |
| Pissflaps |
|
312 | 17.17% |
| Total: | 1817 votes | ||
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Those who seek to limit and curtail the freedoms of a individual in order to meet their collectivist/marxist aims. Those will use underhanded means to try and destroy ideological opponents while claiming its in the name of equality and tolerance. Tell us about cultural Marxism now. We're all dying to hear about it.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Those who seek to limit and curtail the freedoms of a individual in order to meet their collectivist/marxist aims. Those will use underhanded means to try and destroy ideological opponents while claiming its in the name of equality and tolerance. Like poor Adolph H, bullied into suicide after 4 years of repression by those evil commies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Those who seek to limit and curtail the freedoms of a individual in order to meet their collectivist/marxist aims. Those will use underhanded means to try and destroy ideological opponents while claiming its in the name of equality and tolerance. You're in a thread full of marxists you complete dipshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Like poor Adolph H, bullied into suicide after 4 years of repression by those evil commies. So much for the tolerant left
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
there's absolutely nothing wrong with underhanded tactics against right wing political or propaganda outlets sorry but don't be a bunch of fuckwits who want to run the country as a hellscape
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Anyone who picks the freedom to say friend of the family over the freedom from starvation & homelessness is an arsehole imo. Stealing this for my next conversation with whiny centrists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
I don't think I'm being underhanded when I say it's fine to use all sorts of tactics to destroy my ideological opponents because I'm quite open about that and my ideological opponents are knobheads. Neither the method nor the aim is remotely devious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Anyone who picks the freedom to say friend of the family over the freedom from starvation & homelessness is an arsehole imo. The problem with this that it starts by limiting a persons speech because its offensive till you get to the point where even thinking certain things makes you guilty of a thought crime? You should be free to say as you please but not free from the consequences your words cause
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:The problem with this that it starts by limiting a persons speech because its offensive till you get to the point where even thinking certain things makes you guilty of a thought crime? You're real mad you can't say the n-word, got it. gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:You should be free to say as you please but not free from the consequences your words cause In which case I trust you're fine with the consequence that talking poo poo gets you hit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:37
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:The problem with this that it starts by limiting a persons speech because its offensive till you get to the point where even thinking certain things makes you guilty of a thought crime? Are you trying to make a stupid slippery slope argument or are you trying to make an idiotic strawman argument it's hard to tell
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
You can't even talk about how all muslims need to be purged. When will this attack on my freedom end?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:The problem with this that it starts by limiting a persons speech because its offensive till you get to the point where even thinking certain things makes you guilty of a thought crime? How about if the consequence is if someone sticks your pretend slippery slope up your urinary tract?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Peel posted:Not that anyone cares what they think but the graun endorsed labour, I had wondered if they'd go lib dem this election but the prophesied collapse not coming I guess has eliminated that. hey thanks for that thread, it's giving me some good stuff to chew on 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In which case I trust you're fine with the consequence that talking poo poo gets you hit. Violence should not be used on either side
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Everybody should be able to say whatever they want! It's a free country after all! *cops, bosses, regularly using racist and homophobic insults against people legally and economically subordinate to them, safe in the knowledge that they're largely protected from any retaliation or consequences from their victims* Whew, thank god for freedom! God bless america and god bless the bill of rights and the constitution! *rides a bald eagle into a burning pile of pigshit*
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
If the regressive left stops me saying friend of the family then one day perhaps they'll invent a machine that can sense when I'm just thinking friend of the family and what then??
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:How about if the consequence is if someone sticks your pretend slippery slope up your urinary tract? Since its a concept I'd imagine it would be hard to shove down my urinary tract
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Violence should not be used on either side Ideally true! However violence is going to be used by one side and refusing to use it in turn simply concedes a practical method of opposition and allows it to be perpetuated by the other side. So in practice no, violence absolutely can and should be used where it can be efficaciously employed to prevent further violence, particularly against noncombatants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Since its a concept I'd imagine it would be hard to shove down my urinary tract We;ll twist some barbed wire into the shape of your favourite racial slur and work from there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
I think you shouldn't be punished for saying things. You should be free to say what you like and people should be free to punish you for saying the- wait no hold on my argument is loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
I propose a compromise. Everybody can use all the racist (and other) slurs they like, and everybody else is free to knock their teeth out. A slur is an attack, after all, with no purpose in a debate or a discussion except to insult and hurt people. So it's morally equivalent to a kick in the teeth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
jabby posted:As an amateur photographer I always get a little bit worried when people say that being photographed/filmed while out in public is a violation of your personal privacy. If you were going to do something about it, where do you draw the line between taking snapshots that happen to contain members of the public and unacceptable creeping on people? The line is at the exact moment when you start behaving like a creep. You may also wish to consider that, especially in the era of digital photography, some people have a very good reason for not wanting their photo taken by God-knows-who, to have God-knows-what done with it. Delete the photo, don't be that one arse who gets up on a soapbox and insists on his right to take photos in a public place. You're not HCB and you're not going to win a Pulitzer with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Everybody should be able to say whatever they want! It's a free country after all! This is more to a lack of accountability with American Law Enforcement than the freedom of speech
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I propose a compromise. Everybody can use all the racist (and other) slurs they like, and everybody else is free to knock their teeth out. I see you are a part of a vast dentist conspiracy to make people but false teeth
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Those who seek to limit and curtail the freedoms of a individual in order to meet their collectivist/marxist aims. Those will use underhanded means to try and destroy ideological opponents while claiming its in the name of equality and tolerance. But we're all for the limiting and curtailing of freedoms to meet collectivist/marxist aims. I'm not asking people to agree with the majority of this thread, but at least know what we are. The M in UKMT secretly means marxist. Sometimes monstermunch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Goons, at 20:30 it is FRIDAY QUESTION TIME!!! Wow!!  Join us in #ukgoons on synric (link in OP).quote:Conservative Party leader and prime minister Theresa May and Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn face a Question Time audience in York. Presented by David Dimbleby. crispix fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Jun 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:This is more to a lack of accountability with American Law Enforcement So you accept the convention that some people shouldn't be able to say whatever the gently caress they want? Because some social dynamics are unequal, and people can (and often demonstrably do) abuse positions of power to be spiteful and hurtful to people in technically-legal, but definitely immoral ways, yes? Words are not dead, empty things. They have power, and (used spitefully) can cause tremendous damage. People should be held accountable for their use of language, particularly if they occupy positions of power and authority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
IFM is a big piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:IFM is a big piece of poo poo. Yeah I mean we kinda knew that already but I'm almost hoping it's the 17 year old edgelord variety, which is sometimes salvageable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:So you accept the convention that some people shouldn't be able to say whatever the gently caress they want? Because some social dynamics are unequal, and people can (and often demonstrably do) abuse positions of power to be spiteful and hurtful to people in technically-legal, but definitely immoral ways, yes? You mean I agree that police officers saying racial and homophobic slurs should not be protected from the consequences of their actions? Yes
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
crispix posted:Goons, at 20:30 it is FRIDAY QUESTION TIME!!! Wow!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Who'd have guessed the idiot who keeps linking Carl of Swindon vids and talks entirely in 4chan memes and irony is a bit of a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Violence should not be used on either side the consequences of saying things can include violence. You don't get to be protected from that. That's not a slippery slope, free speech was literally never implemented to be what you appear to want it to be. Nor should it be. The government can't round you up for saying dumb poo poo. That's it. That's all it should be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
I'm gonna venture the controversial opinion that as your wealth and power increase so to does the effect of what you say and think. And so, it becomes by any reasonable definition, possible to harm others by thinking wrongly if you hold sufficient power, and thus, doing so would fall within the bounds of what a moral legal framework should exist to protect the public against.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Those who seek to limit and curtail the freedoms of a individual in order to meet their collectivist/marxist aims. Those will use underhanded means to try and destroy ideological opponents while claiming its in the name of equality and tolerance. Which freedoms are you thinking of? the freedom of bnp man's speech? The freedom of the edl to protest against the brown man? The freedom of the rich to earn more than they will ever need while people are starving and homeless? What freedoms are you frightened of losing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I had two personal experiences of this, and they're both goony as gently caress so y'all can get a good laugh out of it. I know what you mean. I'd be way more comfortable taking a picture of a random stranger with my DSLR than with my phone, simply because it's more obvious what you're doing. I don't think you should have to ask permission to photograph someone in a public place, but I also think you shouldn't deliberately do it surreptitiously. Trin Tragula posted:The line is at the exact moment when you start behaving like a creep. I've heard this argument a few times, but no-one has ever adequately explained what kind of 'who-knows-what' someone could do with a photograph of you. A picture taken in public rather than one taken privately, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
TACD posted:And despite what you might expect from how Question Time has always been, May and Corbyn will be going on separately so that Theresa doesn't wee herself in fear. I hope he stops being quite so nice and asks why she won't be in the same room as him. This election is Theresa May: Scum on the Run. 
crispix fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jun 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:The line is at the exact moment when you start behaving like a creep. What about genuinely insightful and neat looking projects like this? http://www.dougiewallace.com/harrodsburg/
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
jabby posted:I've heard this argument a few times, but no-one has ever adequately explained what kind of 'who-knows-what' someone could do with a photograph of you. Well I mean, if you share it with someone we have vast pieces of software designed to apply the collective reasoning of hundreds of thousands of people to locate and identify people and share that information with anyone who might want to know it, it's called social media. You are essentially functioning as a PI.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:04
|
|