Politics Thread 5

[Preezy]

Things should have changed after Jo Cox was murdered, quite surprised they didn't pass new legislation or security procedures for MPs after that (or did I just miss that?).

[Hexx]

Nope. They just ramped all the rhetoric and hate speech that fires up the right wing nutjobs.

[Moggy]

Things should have changed after Jo Cox was murdered, quite surprised they didn't pass new legislation or security procedures for MPs after that (or did I just miss that?).

Jo Cox should have been a much bigger story than it was. It was completely overshadowed by the Brexit referendum. It’s actually shocking to think that an elected politician was murdered by a white supremacist terrorist and most people have completely forgotten about it. But the desire to look at the reasons behind the Jo Cox murder wasn’t there and it isn’t really surprising - the media and demagogue politicians created the atmosphere that led to her death, they didn’t want anybody looking at the reasons too closely.

I am not sure we need additional legislation, the legislation is already there to deal with these fuckwits. The trouble is the police do not want to be seen arresting these arseholes as all that ends up happening is people like Yaxley-Lennon use their arrests to brainwash more idiots.

[Prototype]

These banana splits are just looking to become the next Little Tommy.

Arrest them if they persist with getting up everyone's gooseberry fool. Starve them of funds and a platform.

You do realise censorship does nothing but fuel extreme politics right?

[Hexx]

Tell that to Milo

[Prototype]

Tell that to Milo

Yianopolis? Love that guy

[OrangeRKN]

These banana splits are just looking to become the next Little Tommy.

Arrest them if they persist with getting up everyone's gooseberry fool. Starve them of funds and a platform.

You do realise censorship does nothing but fuel extreme politics right?

If censorship wasn't an effective means on political suppression then it wouldn't be used by every politically oppressive state throughout history. Regardless, de-platforming is not the same as state censorship. Society has a responsibility to self-police and correction of behaviour is a normal and ubiquitous behaviour of society. State censorship is bad because it is top-down, violently enforced and designed to control the population, rather than protect it. De-platforming is a voluntary and society-led act of protection.

Extreme politics is "fueled" by normalisation through exposure and propaganda, and through group and attitude polarisation, where people who share similar views become more extreme and set in those views through sharing them - which is a huge consideration in the filter-bubble of the online world.

When you de-platform extremist views you deny them opportunity to spread to those unfamiliar with them, you prevent their normalisation in popular thought through continued exposure, and you limit the circles through which those views become polarised to further extremes.

Open debate requires opposing sides to both engage in debate in good faith, which far-right extremism does not. Open debate should also accurately reflect the balance of opinion and support for ideas in society at large. Letting far-right extremists into that debate massively over-inflates the perception of their support, which is problematic as it contributes towards the aforementioned normalisation of those views.

When we are talking about whether these people should be arrested that's separate to de-platforming, as the actions for which they should be arrested are not the spouting of their views, but disrupting public order, harassment and intimidation. These are actions separate to political opinion, and the police preventing them is not censorship.

tl;dr strawberry float facists

[Moggy]

These banana splits are just looking to become the next Little Tommy.

Arrest them if they persist with getting up everyone's gooseberry fool. Starve them of funds and a platform.

You do realise censorship does nothing but fuel extreme politics right?

Does it? People like to say things like that, but in reality does denying a mainstream voice to extremists actually enhance them?

People like Katie Hopkins, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and Anjem Choudary gained widespread publicity from their TV and radio appearances. Would “Tommy Robinson” be known at all if he had been kept off of our TV, radio and newspapers?

And it is not censorship to deny these idiots media appearances. They are not politicians, they are not journalists and they have nothing truthful to say. I (rightfully!) don’t get invited onto the BBC to spout my views, why should some twat in a yellow jacket?

[Prototype]

I (rightfully!) don’t get invited onto the BBC to spout my views, why should some twat in a yellow jacket?

Rightfully? How so? Your view isn't worth more or less than the people mentioned in your post?

Obviously the people you mention in your post have rose to prominence based on their extreme and controversial opinions, but simply denying them the right to speak does nothing but raise their profile and consequently, intensify the opinions of people who hold similar ideology.

[Moggy]

I (rightfully!) don’t get invited onto the BBC to spout my views, why should some twat in a yellow jacket?

Rightfully? How so? Your view isn't worth more or less than the people mentioned in your post?

Obviously the people you mention in your post have rose to prominence based on their extreme and controversial opinions, but simply denying them the right to speak does nothing but raise their profile and consequently, intensify the opinions of people who hold similar ideology.

Because I’m a nobody. It’s perfectly right and proper that I don’t get invited into the BBC to talk about climate change, Brexit or immigration.

You’re wrong about the people I mentioned. They rose to prominence by being given platforms on the BBC, LBC and in the Sun and Mail. They would be pretty much unheard of if it wasn’t for the fact that they were given mainstream airtime.

Denying them the oxygen of mainstream publicity vastly reduces their scope to spread their vile opinions.

[Prototype]

Because I’m a nobody.

You are somebody, Moggy.

Denying them the oxygen of mainstream publicity vastly reduces their scope to spread their vile opinions.

Then your problem is with mainstream publicity and the way people consume news.

Opinions though right? Not facts. Which means their opinions are up for debate. I personally fundamentally disagree with the 3 names you mention, however, I certainly don't think "withholding oxygen" is the way forward.

[Moggy]

Because I’m a nobody.

You are somebody, Moggy.

Denying them the oxygen of mainstream publicity vastly reduces their scope to spread their vile opinions.

Then your problem is with mainstream publicity and the way people consume news.

Opinions though right? Not facts. Which means their opinions are up for debate. I personally fundamentally disagree with the 3 names you mention, however, I certainly don't think "withholding oxygen" is the way forward.

I am a nobody when it comes to a national/international broadcaster inviting people on to give their opinions. The mainstream media does not have a space in their studios/newspapers for every single one of the 65 million people in this country, why should the far right be an exception?

Somebody like Farage has the right to appear on things like the news or Question Time as he is an elected official. Why the hell should Stephen Yaxley-Lennon get a platform on Newsnight? That does nothing except make him appear legitimate and gives him the opportunity to brainwash even more of the population.

[That]

tl;dr strawberry float facists

[Hexx]

I can't stand Bercow normally but he's having the time of his life in Parliament right now

Telling Leadsom the legal advice given to him was private and confidential

[Prototype]

Why the hell should Stephen Yaxley-Lennon get a platform on Newsnight?

Because whether you like it or not, a lot of people in the UK share his opinion on multiple issues.

[OrangeRKN]

Obviously the people you mention in your post have rose to prominence based on their extreme and controversial opinions, but simply denying them the right to speak does nothing but raise their profile and consequently, intensify the opinions of people who hold similar ideology.

By what mechanism are their profiles raised when they are de-platformed? What examples do you have of de-platforming leading to extremist profiles being raised?

The most heard are often those that shout the loudest. I don't understand your logic which seems to suggest the opposite - that keeping someone quiet results in them being heard more - and I think evidence points to the contrary. You may get a brief spike in awareness (a sort-of Streissand effect) if it's a high-profile cancellation of an event or removal from a popular web site, but only where they were allowed to become popular in the first place, and the long term effect is that those voices are no longer prominent outside of their circle, so no longer spread or become normalised. Milo is a great example of someone who's profile and influence has fallen drastically following things like him being banned from Twitter. The real goal however is to never let those profiles rise to begin with, so there is no outcry of "censorship" or significant Streissand effect.

tl;dr strawberry float facists

When did u take this

[Moggy]

Why the hell should Stephen Yaxley-Lennon get a platform on Newsnight?

Because whether you like it or not, a lot of people in the UK share his opinion on multiple issues.

A lot of people would support deporting all non-whites. That doesn’t mean they should get a spot on the BBC’s flagship news programme.

[Preezy]

I am a nobody when it comes to a national/international broadcaster inviting people on to give their opinions.

Your lack of self-esteem saddens me, dear Moggy.

[Prototype]

Why the hell should Stephen Yaxley-Lennon get a platform on Newsnight?

Because whether you like it or not, a lot of people in the UK share his opinion on multiple issues.

A lot of people would support deporting all non-whites. That doesn’t mean they should get a spot on the BBC’s flagship news programme.

Why not? Those ideologies dont disappear by simply being ignored or not being given a platform on your news broadcast of choice. These types of views should be met head on and shut down accordingly.

[Moggy]

Why the hell should Stephen Yaxley-Lennon get a platform on Newsnight?

Because whether you like it or not, a lot of people in the UK share his opinion on multiple issues.

A lot of people would support deporting all non-whites. That doesn’t mean they should get a spot on the BBC’s flagship news programme.

Why not? Those ideologies dont disappear by simply being ignored or not being given a platform on your news broadcast of choice. These types of views should be met head on and shut down accordingly.

Those types of views don’t disappear. That is true.

But they certainly don’t disappear by inviting people onto TV to promote those views. That promotion spreads those views and makes them appear like a legitimate view to hold.

I understand that you think debating these people is the way of defanging them. But that simply doesn’t work, it just creates more followers.