Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hrothbern, Mar 22, 2019.
Sargon of Akkad and the nazi pug man standing as UKIP MEPs.... thats some talent recruitment.
'Talented' is not on the job description for UK MPs.
Two known trolls. SoA in particular is rather disgusting (at least the pug person isn't that famous web-wise)
We only narrowly escaped having Tommy Robinson as a UKIP candidate. The UKIP executive aren't as keen as him as their leader is and have stopped him joining for the moment so he can't stand for them although he was keen to.
All three have the advantage that they are fundamentally misunderstood, misrepresented and underestimated by their opponents. I doubt anyone knows what Dancula's politics actually are, I certainly don't.
Thats sort of the point of them. They say awful things, if it generates the right kind of backlash then they complain about their freedom of speech. If it generates the wrong kind of backlash then it was all just a joke. Ironic meme racism concealing actual racism (except in S L-Y's case where its just plain racism).
In Dancula's case it literally was a joke and he got imprisoned, i'd say worrying about freedom of speech is entirely legitimate.
It was a joke until you see who loves him on twitter and whos paying his bills.
Well, you can't shout "fire" in a threatre and then claim it was a joke. Likewise, if you break laws relating to the incitement of hatred, then it doesn't matter whether you claimed it was a joke or not.
Hell someone CFCer repeated Sargon's claim to be left wing this week and thats about as plausible.
Well, there's a pretty clear difference:
Mark Meechan claims plausible deniability.
What would be your intent again when you were shouting "fire" in a crowded theater?
Feel free to enlighten me.
If I ever do it, I'll let you know.
So we're clear, you are happy with a law that ignores mens rea and the non-existence of actual harmful consequences? I think the law in question is offensively bad.
We're talking about hypothetical you.
You know, you play joking Mark Meechan at the movies and i play the cop and you explain the joke to me.
I changed the above post since the hypothetical seemed to bother you.
I'm pretty ok with youtube being reckoned as a public space. He'd have been done the same for it if he did his funny joke in the town square.
And that's your right to do so, just like I think that Section 28 was grotesquely unfair, yet somehow remained on the books for 17 years. The person in question was judged to have broken the law and should pay the consequences. As far as I'm concerned, there are far worse things going on than worrying about whether an idiot with appalling taste in "humour" was poorly served by the law. (I don't believe he was actually imprisoned though.)
I don't think that's a valid reason to let principles as fundamental as freedom of speech be infringed by bad laws.
Would you say the same about Alan Turing's conviction?
SoA, scottishpugguy and Robinson (?) more or less have the same audience, though, namely afaik teen to thirty year old web-browsing people. Doesn't seem very likely they would all draw a lot of votes - in fact i am not sure if Sargon will at all, while up to now i thought the pug guy had literally no chance with politics.
Having patreon/other backers is one thing, getting people to vote for you may need different networking (albeit equally disgusting).
I wouldn't mind Sargon being banned by youtube at all, cause i find him ridiculously bad (at least Alex Jones is funny ) but didn't he at least think of possible such developments? For starters he will now be tied to a specific political party, so maybe ads may be taken out etc.
The EU locals are a protest vote. Many people who vote in them will only care that it is UKIP or somesuch on the ballot and put their mark, they won't care who the individual is.
Separate names with a comma.