Kulturkampf

[Potato]

The basketball dildo affair is honestly one of the most menacing things going on right now. It's portrayed as a joke, but it really has the vibe of raptors testing fences.

I love how they keep ascribing these motivations to what was probably some frat boy douchebag prank to take the piss out of the lesbians on court.

[benji]

[Potato]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cm2vkgelrwwo

The Premier League will no longer take part in the Rainbow Laces campaign after ending its partnership with LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall.

[HaughtyFrank]

"Actually it's your fault Spotify that you implemented age verification after we implemented a law that threatens every website with a gigantic fine"

[HaughtyFrank]

The kind of shit that has you swearing it has to be fake until you google it

https://cityclerk.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2016/16-1104-S3_misc_03-21-25.pdf

[Eric Cartman]

But people can still call people faggy retards at public meetings?

[Alpacx]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cm2vkgelrwwo

The Premier League will no longer take part in the Rainbow Laces campaign after ending its partnership with LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall.

Pro sports is an area where anti-homphobia campaigns can still be useful so of course the queers/trans/non-binary ruin it.

[benji]

[HaughtyFrank]

What kind of annoys me is that these countries still think they're a bastion of free speech. Just recently I saw a German politician make the argument "That people who complain about a lack of free speech are just upset that they're being criticized for their opinions" something that's just patently untrue when you have people sitting court because they made light of the attempted Trump's assassination.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/german-satirist-el-hotzo-acquitted-over-trump-attempted-assassination-comments/

He basically imported the argument from US free speech debates without understanding that at this point the UK and Germany have very different understandings of free speech than the US.

[benji]

The UK's tradition diverged greatly from the US before most of these people were even alive. It moved towards the more restrictive continental one probably even before the war. Rather famously, libel was only changed towards the US's version in the last decade. The UK communication acts for the internet always did the opposite of the US's "anything goes" Section 230 style world, they were more restrictive than even other continental versions. (Sweden for example has something that's essentially like Section 230.)

I don't mean this to argue in favor of the US approach in anything, even if I obviously do favor it, but much of the US approach was informed by the UK's censorship regime. The US's lack of prior restraint has always been framed against the UK's requirement for state approval before publication that the UK has mostly only ever ceased because of the pressure release of the US's system. The claim that the US was better adhering to Anglo tradition and rhetoric had a real effect on shaming the UK's elites over the centuries, but they rarely argued to try and outdo the US as much as merely out do the continent.

The UK was only a "badge of honor" because everyone else was so terrible and the US was a backwater that itself took a while to fully form its defense of free speech. By the post-war period where the US's views were starting to dominate liberal discourse the Commonwealth countries elites mostly attacked it as too permissive and looked towards the continental belief that freedom of speech needs to be suspended when it infringes on the right of the state to have an "ordered society" which is why that's been written into every legal defense of the right everywhere in the world but the US. Mill's argument was never really taken seriously anywhere but the US, and much of that was done against the conscious will of the majority.

Again, obviously I'm biased but I think putting the question the way I did to Occam that he refused to answer exposes the difference in the belief in the rhetoric: should someone be imprisoned (or killed) for their speech? Even when they answer "yes" to a specific example, I find most Americans that don't post on ResetERA.com can be convinced towards the merits of no. I've always found this more difficult with Europeans, continental or TERF Island. (For what it's worth, I've also found Canadians are closer to Europeans, Aussies closer to the US.) But as you mentioned, the rhetoric has often been unchanged despite this great disagreement about what seems to be the most fundamental part of the concept.

[benji]

[Besticus Maximus]

The UK's tradition diverged greatly from the US before most of these people were even alive. It moved towards the more restrictive continental one probably even before the war. Rather famously, libel was only changed towards the US's version in the last decade. The UK communication acts for the internet always did the opposite of the US's "anything goes" Section 230 style world, they were more restrictive than even other continental versions. (Sweden for example has something that's essentially like Section 230.)

I don't mean this to argue in favor of the US approach in anything, even if I obviously do favor it, but much of the US approach was informed by the UK's censorship regime. The US's lack of prior restraint has always been framed against the UK's requirement for state approval before publication that the UK has mostly only ever ceased because of the pressure release of the US's system. The claim that the US was better adhering to Anglo tradition and rhetoric had a real effect on shaming the UK's elites over the centuries, but they rarely argued to try and outdo the US as much as merely out do the continent.

The UK was only a "badge of honor" because everyone else was so terrible and the US was a backwater that itself took a while to fully form its defense of free speech. By the post-war period where the US's views were starting to dominate liberal discourse the Commonwealth countries elites mostly attacked it as too permissive and looked towards the continental belief that freedom of speech needs to be suspended when it infringes on the right of the state to have an "ordered society" which is why that's been written into every legal defense of the right everywhere in the world but the US. Mill's argument was never really taken seriously anywhere but the US, and much of that was done against the conscious will of the majority.

Again, obviously I'm biased but I think putting the question the way I did to Occam that he refused to answer exposes the difference in the belief in the rhetoric: should someone be imprisoned (or killed) for their speech? Even when they answer "yes" to a specific example, I find most Americans that don't post on ResetERA.com can be convinced towards the merits of no. I've always found this more difficult with Europeans, continental or TERF Island. (For what it's worth, I've also found Canadians are closer to Europeans, Aussies closer to the US.) But as you mentioned, the rhetoric has often been unchanged despite this great disagreement about what seems to be the most fundamental part of the concept.

We were the first real modern democracy and we had the first real press and the first sort of free press, we're way down the line compared to the europeans who have spent more time being led by dictators and kings and such

[benji]

We were the first real modern democracy and we had the first real press and the first sort of free press, we're way down the line compared to the europeans who have spent more time being led by dictators and kings and such

FACT CHECK: The first victims of British colonialism were the Indigenous in 1066.

[imsotired]

We were the first real modern democracy and we had the first real press and the first sort of free press, we're way down the line compared to the europeans who have spent more time being led by dictators and kings and such

FACT CHECK: The first victims of British colonialism were the Indigenous in 1066.

There is a legacy of genocide beginning with the Norman settler colonial state, a through-line right from the Harrying of the North to the conquest of Bengal and establishment of the Zionist state. Learn the history folks.

[HeavenIsAPlaceOnEarth]

Only non-whites can be genocided, chuds.

[D3RANG3D]

[Eric Cartman]

The UK's tradition diverged greatly from the US before most of these people were even alive. It moved towards the more restrictive continental one probably even before the war. Rather famously, libel was only changed towards the US's version in the last decade. The UK communication acts for the internet always did the opposite of the US's "anything goes" Section 230 style world, they were more restrictive than even other continental versions. (Sweden for example has something that's essentially like Section 230.)

I don't mean this to argue in favor of the US approach in anything, even if I obviously do favor it, but much of the US approach was informed by the UK's censorship regime. The US's lack of prior restraint has always been framed against the UK's requirement for state approval before publication that the UK has mostly only ever ceased because of the pressure release of the US's system. The claim that the US was better adhering to Anglo tradition and rhetoric had a real effect on shaming the UK's elites over the centuries, but they rarely argued to try and outdo the US as much as merely out do the continent.

The UK was only a "badge of honor" because everyone else was so terrible and the US was a backwater that itself took a while to fully form its defense of free speech. By the post-war period where the US's views were starting to dominate liberal discourse the Commonwealth countries elites mostly attacked it as too permissive and looked towards the continental belief that freedom of speech needs to be suspended when it infringes on the right of the state to have an "ordered society" which is why that's been written into every legal defense of the right everywhere in the world but the US. Mill's argument was never really taken seriously anywhere but the US, and much of that was done against the conscious will of the majority.

Again, obviously I'm biased but I think putting the question the way I did to Occam that he refused to answer exposes the difference in the belief in the rhetoric: should someone be imprisoned (or killed) for their speech? Even when they answer "yes" to a specific example, I find most Americans that don't post on ResetERA.com can be convinced towards the merits of no. I've always found this more difficult with Europeans, continental or TERF Island. (For what it's worth, I've also found Canadians are closer to Europeans, Aussies closer to the US.) But as you mentioned, the rhetoric has often been unchanged despite this great disagreement about what seems to be the most fundamental part of the concept.

The biggest difference is that we have no actual constitution and all legally enshrouded rights are on an ad hoc basis, with 'rule of law' being the only uber-principle which all else derives from. As such, all our 'essential freedoms' are philosophical rather than legislated - when people discuss 'classical liberalism', they're basically talking a british philosophy as espoused by thinkers like John Locke.

The upside of that is that these freedoms are considered valuable because of the weight of philosophical argument that people have to buy into rather than being hammered into them as 'the rules'; it's why debate is so enshrined in the whole process, and it is not uncommon for MPs of any political persuasion to break ranks with party position on subjects they have an actual position on, and things are generally a lot less partisan than US politics tends to be.
The downside is that legal protections can often take literally years to be established via court precedent, because the wheels of justice grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

[NekoFever]

We were the first real modern democracy and we had the first real press and the first sort of free press, we're way down the line compared to the europeans who have spent more time being led by dictators and kings and such

FACT CHECK: The first victims of British colonialism were the Indigenous in 1066.

There is a legacy of genocide beginning with the Norman settler colonial state, a through-line right from the Harrying of the North to the conquest of Bengal and establishment of the Zionist state. Learn the history folks.

Disgusting erasure of the Anglo-Saxon genocide of the Celts.

[Alpacx]

[HaughtyFrank]

^ related

They're truly coming for the public defenders

[Ethan]

A Great Montréal Pride War update, where three competing parades took place over the weekend, including two at the same time

For a second year in a row, autonomous militants connected to the decentralized Faction Against Genocide, in Solidarity (F.A.G.S.) network disrupted the corporate pride parade, in response to the call to escalation coming from the Palestinian Resistance. Pride Montréal continues its complicity in the ongoing genocide in Palestine, its corporate cooptation of queer struggles, and its shameful collaboration with SPVM (Montreal Police).

The day after RadPride, which faced severe police brutality, and while Wild Pride marched for an anti-colonial queer and trans struggle to delegitimise Fierté Montréal, the militants felt a moral duty to act. We join a wider movement of queer for Palestine disrupting Pride in “Vancouver”, Tkaronto, Amsterdam and worldwide.  In opposition to the Zionist presence at the parade, and to its collaboration with the police, the army, and corporate interests, the protestors disrupted Pride Montreal.

Around 3PM, about 30 protestors made their way into the parade to block the Ga’ava and CIJA float. These Zionist groups claim to be the representatives of the queer Jewish community. Anti-Zionist Jews, who were notably among us in denouncing the Zionist entity’s genocide, resolutely disavow the cooptation of queer struggles by the pinkwashing of the colonial state. We denounce the space given blindly by Quebec mainstream media to CIJA’s direcor of “communications” (propaganda), Julien Corona, who constantly cries oppression and anti-semitism, while not even being Jewish himself.

The protestors succeeded in blocking the parade and its Zionist contingent at multiple moments, and truly disrupted its activities by their mere presence, as well as by the autonomous initiative of a comrade who sprayed them with nettle extract (a non-harmful natural substance that stinks like hell).

We consider this action a success. We were able to get the message across that our pride is and will always be wild, and all this with the enthusiastic support of the majority of the parade’s spectators. Fierté Montréal has once again demonstrated that it prefers to deploy riot cops to intimidate queers of conscience than to listen to the voices of the community. One person was violently tackled and arrested, but thankfully no serious injuries were sustained.

who sprayed them with nettle extract (a non-harmful natural substance that stinks like hell)

Nettle extract, derived from the Urtica dioica plant, is a natural substance used in traditional medicine and cosmetics for its potential health benefits. It is known for its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties, as well as its potential to alleviate symptoms of seasonal allergies and arthritis.

[Alpacx]

I'm disappointed there weren't bigger shenanigans at Montreal Pride. Queers are slacking.

[benji]

If the quoted person wasn't radically posturing and being inherently hostile because of it they could have emphasized that first sentence, that they don't want public defenders to exist because they don't want criminal trials or any kind of policing system to exist.

Which doesn't make it any less stupid because as we've all seen thousands of times when asked "what should replace it?" Their answer is "I refuse to answer that so stop asking."

That also gets to the thing in what HaughtyFrank posted, they don't want rapists tried (since they could go free, even though they're prison abolitionists) because their argument is that by eliminating the system nobody will rape and if they do the community can just dole out justice to the guilty automatically. Any argument that is this unrealistic and/or worse than the existing system is time for you to find out that shutting the fuck up is free.

[benji]

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

 

[benji]

edit:

[Alpacx]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-if-we-wanted-to-commit-genocide-it-would-have-taken-exactly-one-afternoon/

[HaughtyFrank]

[HeavenIsAPlaceOnEarth]

[benji]

[benji]

But any single person can "formally" ask the Supreme Court for anything? It literally doesn't mean anything. You'd think a lawyer would know this.

This is how you know their real problem is the fact that someone somewhere disagrees with them.



Ah, that's all.