• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Free Speech Dead In UK? [W:394]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who is this 'Left' you keep talking about? Be specific.

Paul

I think he's talking about the Political Correctness party (Aka Labour/potentially Lib Dems) and the general opposition that isn't the Tories, UKIP or BNP.
 
I think he's talking about the Political Correctness party (Aka Labour/potentially Lib Dems) and the general opposition that isn't the Tories, UKIP or BNP.

Spriggs, I thank you for your interjection, but I would like Grant to state who he is referring too. If it is indeed, as you suggest Labour/Libs, one is not in power and one is the minority portion of a coalition. I think he has something else in mind.

Paul
 
Who is this 'Left' you keep talking about? Be specific.

Paul


I don't think he is talking about the whole left side of the political spectrum, but rather, the part of the left that is analagous to the bible-thumping rigidly fundamentalist portion of the right. Just as this portion of the right is irrational, dogmatic, ultra-conformist, reactive and hypocritical, so is this portion of the left. The only differences between the two are the actual positions advocated, as they both approach politics in a mindless way that is long on group-think and short on analysis.

THis portion of the left, for instance, has no problem with significant percentages of Muslims supporting the killing of apostates as long as they aren't the ones actually killing them. It's a bit like saying they have no problem with supporting the raping of children if a person hasn't actually raped one, or supporting canabalism if they haven't attended a human bar-b-que recently. They get backed into such a corner due to the rigid dictates oftheir fundamentalism that they end up trying to defend the indefensible, often times with downright laughable results.
 
Last edited:
I think he's talking about the Political Correctness .

I can still remember the first time I encountered the term "politically correct". I was living in Berkeley, California in the 1970's, and the first time I heard it, I didn't have to have it explained because the very things it addressed were the very things that annoyed me about the left in which I was immersed. Instead of everybody being treated equally -- the goal of actual liberalism -- systems of privelege based upon various traits were creeping into people's world view, and so, to, was the cognitive dissonance based upon the double standards.

Since then, political correctness has become almost institutionalized, and is so internally punative from the standpoint of a brand of ostracism based upon the expression of impure thoughts that it has become so self-regulating that it almost acts as a cult in at least one regard. If somebody holds up three fingers and everybody swears they are holding up two, a person MUST swear that they are two or else be called names. In the particular case of this discussion at hand, one is called a bigot or an Islamophobe or a neo con or a right winger or any of a number of convenient terms that indicate one cannot possibly be one of the cult. The funny thing is -- these accusations are hurled at anybody who wants to hold everybody to the same standard instead of treating one group as special and one group not.

I find it odd how those most determined to view the world in terms of race are now the ones who treat members of any but their pown as inviolate. Sure, there are still pockets of the good, old fashioned white racists, but these numbers are absolutely dwarfed by the numbers of hypocrites of the left for whom political correctness demands they attack anybody who hasn't elevated those different than them to a status so special they cannot be criticized.
 
I can still remember the first time I encountered the term "politically correct". I was living in Berkeley, California in the 1970's, and the first time I heard it, I didn't have to have it explained because the very things it addressed were the very things that annoyed me about the left in which I was immersed. Instead of everybody being treated equally -- the goal of actual liberalism -- systems of privelege based upon various traits were creeping into people's world view, and so, to, was the cognitive dissonance based upon the double standards.

Since then, political correctness has become almost institutionalized, and is so internally punative from the standpoint of a brand of ostracism based upon the expression of impure thoughts that it has become so self-regulating that it almost acts as a cult in at least one regard. If somebody holds up three fingers and everybody swears they are holding up two, a person MUST swear that they are two or else be called names. In the particular case of this discussion at hand, one is called a bigot or an Islamophobe or a neo con or a right winger or any of a number of convenient terms that indicate one cannot possibly be one of the cult. The funny thing is -- these accusations are hurled at anybody who wants to hold everybody to the same standard instead of treating one group as special and one group not.

I find it odd how those most determined to view the world in terms of race are now the ones who treat members of any but their pown as inviolate. Sure, there are still pockets of the good, old fashioned white racists, but these numbers are absolutely dwarfed by the numbers of hypocrites of the left for whom political correctness demands they attack anybody who hasn't elevated those different than them to a status so special they cannot be criticized.

Who needs the bible when you have this.
 
Who needs the bible when you have this.

From the links.

The One Law for All Campaign was launched on 10 December 2008,
International Human Rights Day, to call on the UK Government to
recognise that Sharia and religious courts are arbitrary and discriminatory
against women and children in particular and that citizenship and human
rights are non-negotiable. The Campaign aims to end Sharia and all
religious courts on the basis that they work against, and not for, equality
and human rights.
That should include free speech as well.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Thread has degenerated further, there are multiple violations of the in thread warning and it is now closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom