No.14368
File: 1724193736449.png (782.66 KB, 1080x1196, 270:299, Screenshot_20240820-182947.png) ImgOps Google
The other thread got kind of derailed, so here's a new thread about tyranny in the UK.
https://x.com/aaronsibarium/status/1825977695361994875 No.14369
File: 1724193770660.png (496.51 KB, 1080x1638, 60:91, Screenshot_20240820-124619.png) ImgOps Google
No.14372
File: 1724210700859.jpg (36.79 KB, 930x558, 5:3, 3990.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
British society has unfortunately been subject to a variety of restrictions on freedom of the press, given right-wing policies around state powers that've destroyed personal freedoms.
For instance, in terms of the occupation of Irish soil, 'The British public were not told the truth about the Troubles in the 1960s and 1970s because “the bloody Protestants were running the BBC in Northern Ireland”, the then controller of BBC One has claimed.'
< https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/24/the-bloody-protestants-ran-bbc-in-northern-ireland-in-70s-says-ex-tv-boss >In the U.K. as elsewhere, the political right-wing shoves tyranny down the the throats of the people, who generally desires both equality of opportunity and personal freedom under the objective rule of law (all of which are left-wing ethical values opposed to the right-wing doctrine of authoritarianism).
Let us not forget that Oliver Cromwell attempted the genocide of the Irish and Scottish peoples centuries ago. In the name of British conservatism. He did that. Thank God, though, he failed.
No.14373
File: 1724210990947.jpeg (126.16 KB, 900x512, 225:128, pride-march-yp.jpeg) ImgOps Google
The U.K. is also exercising tyranny over the civil rights of transgender people that must be stopped.
See:
https://www.gendergp.com/trans-youth-in-the-uk/Simply put, "There’s a disturbing tolerance for active discrimination against trans people. Even with their protected characteristics, they’re failing to receive the necessary safeguarding."
This right-wing campaign of tyranny must end. It's disgusting that people can't simply live. Bigoted campaigns of extermination against whole categories of human beings perceived as inferior shouldn't exist.
No.14374
File: 1724211223563.jpeg (69.33 KB, 800x533, 800:533, 2024-07-17T083628Z_1_LYNX….jpeg) ImgOps Google
Labor union rights are also subject to tyrannical efforts in the U.K. that need more attention.
< https://kfgo.com/2024/07/17/uk-union-fails-to-win-recognition-at-amazon-site-after-losing-ballot-amazon-says/ >Amazon in particular has a lot of dirty tricks that it can pull out of it's toolbox. Broadly speaking, 'Amazon’s treatment of workers has been in the spotlight for years. It has historically opposed unionisation, saying its preference has been to resolve issues with employees directly rather than through unions.'
Once again, the political right-wing must be stopped in the U.K. They've been fighting hard to create an omnipotent government using crony capitalist power to stop entrepreneurs and other businesspeople as well as consumers plus workers from all challenging big companies. REAL capitalism by definition involves established monopolies and other such types facing competition.
No.14403
File: 1724540310581.jpg (197.12 KB, 1315x2000, 263:400, 225c14f0d4101a7167e1a1d9b0….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Why'd they choose the UK thread to yell about COVID in, anyway? There are like three COVID threads here already.
>>14347 (from the old thread)
I think that specific case happened because it was directed towards a footballer. For some reason the UK government's
incredibly protective of sportspeople getting abuse online, disproportionately more than anyone else.
I'm not saying that excuses charging a black person for saying the N word without the hard R on social media, but it
does kinda track.
>>14373>Individuals claiming to defend women’s rights are, in practice, excluding and causing harm to transgender individuals.Every fucking time. It's ruined the entire concept of feminism for me. Women should have rights, that goes without saying, but it feels like every group that claims to fight for women is actually just using it as a front to outright demonise transwomen. They don't care about women's rights at all, they just want to beat on the current acceptable target minority. It's disgusting.
No.14410
>>14408So, destroying personal freedom is perfectly fine with you as long as the victims are people that you dislike?
*sighs loudly*
It never fails. Never. Big Brother government crushing a guy's ability to speak freely will automatically be A-OK with conservatives and libertarians as long as that guy isn't one of them. Selectivity is the name of the game.
Some people deserve to be more free than others. Just inherently. I guess. That's the right-wing mindset.
No.14412
>>14410Bro, are you high?
What's with the nonsequitor?
No.14416
>>14409Peaceful marches for Palestine and the whole media freaks out. Race riots and the media goes "we should listen to them"
The whole riots are instigated by zionists agents like Tommy robinson. Israelis are worried that the UK will stop funding their genocide so they instigate these things. The UK's right wing are just useful idiots for foreigners who hate them. That's why they convinced you to be against Palestine protests.
No.14425
File: 1725074719687.jpg (258.89 KB, 571x807, 571:807, FwKgN25aUAEalhY.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>14421>>14424My personal view is that you should have the freedom to say what you like as long as you're not trying to hurt people or encourage other people to hurt people.
I don't think people who spread hatred and vitriol should have a platform. I don't think it's a helpful or valid point of view to have. You may as well dispense with the rhetoric and campaign for killing everyone you don't like. See how many votes you get then.
No.14427
>>14426>But would you personally support the free speech of people who ...Yes! Or at least in a well-functioning liberal democracy. I guess you can argue that the people of some places (e.g., Middle-Eastern countries) aren't ready for democracy and need to be ruled by elites for their own good. But in a liberal democracy, everyone should have freedom of speech.
>>14425>I don't think people who spread hatred and vitriol should have a platform. I don't think it's a helpful or valid point of view to have. The problem with this is that it isn't a practical limitation on gov't power. There is ambiguity in defining what constitutes "hatred" or "vitriol". What one person considers hateful, another might see as a legitimate critique. This opens up the risk of bias and the suppression of legitimate speech. The power to determine what constitutes "hatred" can be easily abused by those in power to suppress dissent, silence political opponents, or target minority views.
- Is it "hateful" to burn an American flag?
- Is it "hateful" to burn a Koran?
- Is it "hateful" to talk about Muslim migrants committing lots of rape?
- Is it "hateful" to talk about sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests?
- Is it "hateful" to make fun of the king?
- Is it "hateful" to call a German politician fat? (
https://x.com/UltraDane/status/1829547788671316444)
I much prefer the American approach of allowing all viewpoints with an exception only for inciting *imminent* lawless action.
No.14429
>>14427>Yes! Or at least in a well-functioning liberal democracy. I guess you can argue that the people of some places (e.g., Middle-Eastern countries) aren't ready for democracy and need to be ruled by elites for their own good. But in a liberal democracy, everyone should have freedom of speech.There's the pretty reasonable counter-argument, though, that if somebody in your country is out there proclaiming "Everybody who opposes the government of China should be killed!" / "Everybody who opposes the government of Russia should be killed!" / etc then that person is an active danger to national security and is harming your citizen's basic safety through their advocacy of violence (on behalf of alien, foreign adversaries).
There's also the question of what if beyond just advocating violence that person is trying to disclose in public people's private information such as taking the bank account numbers of anti-Chinese / anti-Russian / etc activists and putting that out there. Or putting addresses out there as well as phone numbers. And so on.
What do you genuinely think? After all, in fairness, the governments of countries such as China have stockpiles of nuclear missiles aimed at innocents in other nations. It's a difficult context.
No.14430
File: 1725309496396.png (633.31 KB, 1177x1200, 1177:1200, 1452120855966.png) ImgOps Google
>>14429I think prohibiting the gov't (acting as sovereign) from discriminating on the basis of viewpoint is a good bright-line rule. The only exception I'd make is for incitement of imminent unlawful violence.
>disclose in public people's private information such as taking the bank account numbers Perhaps doxxing like that should be unprotected. It can be prohibited in a viewpoint-neutral way.
No.14432
>>14431>Wouldn't "foreign citizens cannot travel to our territory in order to publicly lobby for different things" also be a viewpoint neutral speech rule?Yes. But that alone doesn't mean that it is constitutional or good policy. E.g., I think it would be a bad idea to imprison H-1B workers for speaking online about their grievances with the immigration system.
>And wouldn't it inherently make sense for citizens to be treated differently legally than non-citizens?No, at least for anonymous/pseudonymous speech, because it isn't feasible to determine whether the speaker is a citizen or not. And there is a 1A right to speak anonymously/pseudonymously.
