Subscribe for more!

@TheWorldTeacher

Ай бұрын

Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.

@KnightOnBaldMountain

Ай бұрын

“Hate” is highly subjective.

@meggysaurusrex

Ай бұрын

So cogently expressed, here here and shame on anyone who says otherwise, as a survivor of the meme wars I reserve the right to protest shit post wherever I like about whatever the f*** I like- and no matter what anyone says pug dogs doing Nazi salutes is funny get a sense of humor you SNP cucks!

@Josh-sj9ig

27 күн бұрын

The same podcast that think people protesting Gaza are dangerous and should be stopped...

The real problem is that the word 'hate' just ends up being code for anything those in power dont want you to say.

@AK-qt8dr

Ай бұрын

That is, almost literally, what he said in the video near the middle. Your lack of attention is showing.

@kerravon4159

Ай бұрын

@@AK-qt8dr So is your pedantry.

For the past decade, the most hate i have seen is from the woke.

@mrror8933

Ай бұрын

And the muz

@user-pj5ub5cp9k

Ай бұрын

So like the Jo Cox murder?

@user-pj5ub5cp9k

Ай бұрын

​@@mrror8933Yes. Like the Jo Cox muder and the David Amess murders.

@user-pj5ub5cp9k

Ай бұрын

​@k-LLmUZZYNope.

@WonderfulWorldofAwesomeness

Ай бұрын

The news isn’t allowed to report on when a black person or a trans person does violent crime because the activists shut them down. They claimed that these crimes were sensationalized in the past. But now they go crazy when a white man does, always mentioning his race as a supposed motivating factor. It makes it appear that there’s a huge swath of white men, and now women (since they won’t report when the person is trans) doing these things. It’s simply not true, statistically. But the public won’t ever know that.

The 'hate speech' idea is simply a way to silence arguments against the contention that 'diversity is strength'.

@ronmailloux8655

Ай бұрын

the first part of diversity is dive as in freedom takes a dive.

I haven't heard one person in support of this law. How did it even get pushed through? Something is very rotten in Scotland.

@user-ht1jg4qz3h

Ай бұрын

true, the socialist monster ate their brains🧟🧟🧠🧠 so sad i just to like scotland working their in the 90s...

@eb787

Ай бұрын

He's talking about Ireland. Same shit here.

@zeldagoblin

Ай бұрын

The vast majority of mps

@VeniVidiVid

Ай бұрын

Advocates of censorship are often the most strident constituents. Cowardly politicians allow strident minorities to push them around, for fear of losing their jobs.

@VeniVidiVid

Ай бұрын

Advocates of censorship are often the most strident constituents. Cowardly politicians allow strident minorities to push them around, for fear of losing their jobs.

So criminals are allowed to commit crimes but Joe Public has to like everyone and not allowed to dislike (hate) anyone?

@bjkarana

Ай бұрын

Here in the US, we are locking up things like detergent, formula, and cosmetics ...instead of criminals.

@elkpaz560

Ай бұрын

This is Anarchy-tyranny. What most would consider crime is ignored and exacerbated whilst ordinary acts are criminalised.

@calgakispict3652

Ай бұрын

Criminals run the world and make up the laws... They belong in prison but they make the rules so they will always be protected.

Orwell was an optimist.

@vivian9187

Ай бұрын

OMG that has completely depressed me😂

@kelleygreengrass

Ай бұрын

😂😢😂😢

It's not about hate or hate speech it's about having control and force compliance among the populus.

@shaunwild8797

Ай бұрын

I could see this nonsense coming years back. These laws are not brought about to protect minorities. They are brought about to silence us all and that includes minorities.

@mrror8933

Ай бұрын

It's a way to impose is-lame.

@NoNo-nr2xv

Ай бұрын

​@@mrror8933This.

@matoplays3484

Ай бұрын

@@mrror8933 Maybe in the UK with so many high figures in the government being muslim but elsewhere I think that is just the by product as islam (politicaly) is all about controll and compliance of the populus.

@zeldagoblin

Ай бұрын

Speech

Whats so shocling and cowardly, is that no MP in the Scottish parliment spoke out with concerns during the infamous ' white, white,white' speech by Hansa Yusef.

Unbelievable! My father was a barrister and a legal draftsman, he would be astounded at the low level and unintelligent way of drafting laws these days. You have to be very skilled with good intellectual vigour and excellent critical thinking. This is missing with this modern generation.

@RichardEnglander

Ай бұрын

People don't understand how hard it is to make good laws, that's what we had in England, English Common Law. It is the result of refining ancient laws over generations. The hubris of these politicians is really something isn't it?

@Joseph-gi1mn

Ай бұрын

Your father , whatever his personal opinions is a good man.

@JohnSmith-ux3tt

Ай бұрын

It might have something to do with the people drafting these laws.

@LawofImprobability-2

Ай бұрын

I'm a lawyer in the US. I see a lot of people in the field blindly trust that people will exercise discretion about such charges and then close their eyes when hate speech laws in other jurisdictions are obviously abused. Some people cannot admit that the Left is now crushing dissent instead of just using different terminology for assault or harassment.

@EmperorsNewWardrobe

Ай бұрын

*rigour

It's blasphemy law by the backdoor, the end goal being to impose shariah.

Who decides what speech is “hate” speech. That’s it. That’s the problem

@PhilUKNet

Ай бұрын

Deliberately nebulous so that they can apply their own definition for each case and get the result that they want. Step by step, we are heading towards complete totalitarianism.

@rinkohorowitz

Ай бұрын

Usually it’s ruled by courts. So in England there would be a leading case and then you would have probably subscribed to the definition given by the EU.

there is no such thing as "hate speech" there is no such thing as "hate crimes" hate is a right, not a crime. the same way love is a right, not a crime. emotions are not crimes. only crimes are crimes.

@user-ht1jg4qz3h

Ай бұрын

those devils wanna police our THOUGHTS if they could, since they cant they wanna atleast imprison us bcuz of "wrong" opinions...

@rinkohorowitz

Ай бұрын

You are incorrect from a legal perspective. A hate crime does exist, as it is explained in law. It is a crime done out of hatred for a certain group or ethnicity. Hate speech is speech which threatens or otherwise incites violence against people on the basis of ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender etc. Free speech is a cornerstone of western civilisation, but part of being civilised means being conscientious enough to understand how one’s speech affects others. So we should be careful about what comes out of our mouths or what we write in text. People are entitled to free speech under the law, but not hate speech. There are social and possibly legal consequences for free speech, and so you must be aware of the consequences and implications of your speech.

@rinkohorowitz

Ай бұрын

@@user-ht1jg4qz3hWho are you talking about? And what are these wrong opinions? Yes, people need to be jailed for having opinions that lead to incitement of hatred against individuals or groups based on certain criteria. Because that is breaking the law.

@ZOMBIEHEADSHOTKILLER

29 күн бұрын

@@rinkohorowitz WRONG.... lets fix your mistakes. 1. Laws, do not change rights, or any other aspect of reality. Laws are fictional beliefs. 2. hate speech, is free speech, no exception. 3. freedom, has no limitation, especially not a man made, artificial limitation, such as "laws" 4.only crimes are crimes...... for example, murder is a crime...... its not an extra crime, to be a racist murderer. The victim is victimized by the crime, not the motivation. The victim, is not extra harmed, by the motivation. Motivations are irrelevant. 5. if you dont like what some one says, dont read it, dont listen to them, speak the things you do like.............. but you dont have the right to stop others from their freedom.

@rinkohorowitz

29 күн бұрын

@@ZOMBIEHEADSHOTKILLER No. In your initial statement you made a lot of claims that are either fallacious or otherwise illogical and show a lack of understanding about how the law works, particularly in England. 1. Your “rights” by your logic, are also fictional beliefs. As rights are given based on the law. Laws are not fictional beliefs but a set of rules by which you must abide by or else you will receive consequences. It’s really not a matter of what you believe or not. It just is. The thing that stops you from being executed for your opinions that go against the state, is ironically the rights given to you by the state, which is codified in the law. So rights are also man made. 2. Again, this is opinion, not fact. The current legal stance is that hate speech is not protected by free speech laws. Therefore hate speech is not free speech. You’re essentially making a normative statement here and it doesn’t matter because the law is the law. You may disagree with it, but you cannot just say it isn’t there because you do not agree. 3. Actually “freedom” has many limitations. If you truly believed this, then you would just do what you want. But you don’t. Because you know that you will be punished. You’re only given as much freedom as the state allows you. Focusing on freedom as an ideal is rather childish. I don’t understand the obsession with it, since it’s not as if humans have free will. Or at least not as much free will as we think we do. 4. No, this is a myopic way of looking at the matter, as expected from a layman. In law studies you will learn that motivation matters a lot. There is a difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter for example, and why we take grievous bodily harm more seriously than actual bodily harm. For this example, let’s go through the legal rationale as to why a hate crime is worse than a violent crime not motivated by a hate crime. On the one hand, we have a man who kills someone due to a disagreement, or during a robbery. On the other hand, we have a white man who goes out and kills a black man because he feels that black people are inferior and are that their presence is the reason for the degradation of his country and that they are a threat to white people. Basically neo-Nazi rhetoric. With the former example, this is a one off incident and it is not a targeted attack a group of people. The latter is worse and he would serve a longer prison sentence, because not only did he murder someone, but he did it on the basis of his negative feelings about somebody’s race. This implies that if he was given the opportunity, he would go out and murder other black people based on their race, because his goal is the extermination of them as a group, and not merely one person. Hence why it is in society’s interest to keep him imprisoned for longer. The potential harm to others in society, particularly those from minority groups from a hate crime is higher, compared to harm caused by a crime that is not motivated by bigotry. The motivation is inextricably linked to the crime. Again, your opinion on this doesn’t matter. This is the law and a lot of people who are far knowledgeable and intelligent than you have thought about these things for decades. You’re more than welcome to try and push to change these laws but I highly doubt that will happen since your position is fundamentally anti-human and illogical. Your position is the one promoted by racists who clearly seek to downplay the harm caused by hate crimes and delegitimize their validity as a legal concept. Ironically these same people are hypocrites, as they claim non white people attacking white people on the basis of hatred for their skin colour or ethnicity is a hate crime, is racist, and is somehow proof that anti-white rhetoric is prevalent in society. This leads me to one of two conclusions. The first, being that they are merely ignorant and focused on emotional thinking; they do not stop to consider the fallacies in their argumentation. The second is that there is an implied belief that hate crimes against non-whites are justified due to their status as non-whites, but that only crimes against white people on the basis of there being of European descent, is a hate crime, because to them, white people should be a protected class because, as implied in their own reasoning, white people are superior to other groups of people. 5. I do ignore what people say. The problem is that hate speech spreads and easily turns to violence and discrimination as we saw during the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide, and other atrocities. Like I said, nobody has absolute freedom. Free speech absolutists such as yourself promote freedom as the highest virtue yet you yourself refuse to respect the so called “right” to freedom of others. The truth is your freedom ends when it harms other people and restricts their freedom. Personally, your freedom ends when you annoy me. I have always made it very clear to people since childhood that I do not believe in free speech, and that the country we live in and the institutions that we attend are not free speech zones. I do, in fact, have the right to stop other’s freedom if it negatively affects myself or others. And I have the means to do it too. I have unfortunately had to use physical violence, threats of legal actions, and lawsuits against people for hate speech or other forms of speech or action that I deem offensive. Ironically, by your logic, I have the right to do this. It’s also legally and morally sanctioned since by punishing people for hate speech and discrimination I am doing a moral good for society at large, in addition to imparting justice, as I am restricting the freedom of those who would end up doing objective harming to others through their speech and/or actions. It’s a form of utilitarianism. So to summarize: - Laws are real and the rights that you enjoy such as “freedom” are illusory outside of civilised society and only afforded to you by the laws created by the state. - Free will is more or less an illusion and lie peddled by society, and we do not have as much free will as we think. - Normative statements (I think […] should be this way) have no bearing on what is real or actually happening right now. You thinking that hate speech isn’t real or shouldn’t be considered as a more harmful crime doesn’t negate the fact that it is thought of as such by most people and the law itself. - Your freedom ends when it encroaches on my rights and freedoms. My mother used to say that when someone’s happiness clashes with another person’s happiness, it leads to unhappiness. That’s essentially what she was talking about. - You can indeed punish someone for their thoughts and emotions if they allow said thoughts to guide their actions. - A hate crime is objectively worse for society than a non-hate crime, hence why it carries, (or should carry if it doesn’t already) a harsher punishment.

Count Dankulas recent video about a nigerian woman being jailed for writing a bad review online for tomato puree shows how badly this line of state censorship can be taken out of all proportion.

I have autism, dyslexia, dyspraxia, ADHD, anxiety, depression and a host of other mental issues... This law demands that autistic people understand other people's 'identity'. Does this not 'make our lives unsafe, insecure and cause us such discomfort that we cannot live in peace' when we have a mind like mine? Should these lawmakers not be reporting themselves to the Police for making a life with disabilities even harder?

@alexsilva-vn7jc

Ай бұрын

Excellent point!

My main grievance from these laws in recent times comes against the notion of "protected characteristics"

@alanjm1234

Ай бұрын

You're OK with people being jailed for hurty words?

@Mitjitsu

Ай бұрын

@@alanjm1234 No, my issue is that it gives unequal protection under the law.

What an absolute load of total sense. It will never catch on.

@NiceLoki

Ай бұрын

Had to read your comment a couple of times. True. Sense will not prevail.

@kelleygreengrass

Ай бұрын

​@NiceLoki it will. This will run its course

Careful, Andrew. This sounds dangerously rational and sensible - expect a knock on the door from your local plod to 'check your thinking'.

This also reverses the presumption of innocence. It's part of the presumption of innocence that if the law itself is poorly worded, it has to be interpreted in favour of the accused. If it is ambiguous, the court must go with the interpretation that benefits the defence not the prosecution. But these hate speech laws are the exact opposite of that the ambiguity is being used as a catch all and you have the impossible task of disproving their uncharitable interpretation.

As an apache gunship i am here from the government and i am here to "help"

@Guy-Lewis

Ай бұрын

"apache gunship" Careful! You'll be accused of cultural appropriation, or insulting a privileged group, or, worse yet, promoting violence. Segments of our populations have lost their collective minds.

that William Pitt quote is fire! committing that to memory.

It's absolutely ridiculous that the majority of the planet has to say "the n-word" or "the r-word" when another group can say it freely - even use it in song lyrics! It's not like we don't know what "the r-word" means, ffs.

“The price WE pay” ….. No the price OUR parents and grandparents paid for what WE take for granted in my humble opinion. History always proves this FACT.

They’ve invaded, taken over, and now the coup de grace. Pitiful tbh.

I never agreed with the concept of a "hate crime". How does murdering someone because they're gay make the murder worse for the victim than if they were murdered for any other reason?

@rinkohorowitz

Ай бұрын

I cannot believe that this is an actual question being asked by a grown adult in 2024. I guess if you’re a white male then you simply wouldn’t understand due to white privilege. It’s worse because you are being killed for an immutable characteristic such as ethnicity or sexual orientation. These crimes are usually done to promote hatred against people who belong to minority groups. The fact that the crime is committed based on bias against a certain group or individual is why it is worse than a regular crime. I have heard this idea that we shouldn’t punish hate crimes more harshly than regular crimes, because it is a form of morality policing, because apparently, people should be punished based on their actions and not their thoughts/prejudices. Not only is this completely backwards, as hate crimes are still violent crimes and negatively affect society. For example, we know that a criminal would not want to hurt just one black man, but rather that they want to hurt all black men. Letting them off easy, with a slap on the wrist, would at best set them free to do it again, consequence-free; at worst, the lack of punishment would be seen as vindication that they were justified in doing what they did. The thought in this case, is not the crime. No one is being punished simply by virtue of their thoughts. They're being punished by the degree to which they let their thoughts affect their actions. And people who hurt someone because of their race have an inherent motive to hurt other people as well, and have demonstrated that they will act on this motive if given the chance. I don’t understand why anyone who isn’t racist, or who isn’t someone who might commit a hate crime, would care about people receiving longer sentences for hate crimes. Do you feel the same way against, e.g., murder in the first degree vs murder in the second degree vs manslaughter? These are cases where we punish the crime more severely based purely on the thoughts. For example, murder and premeditated murder are punished differently.

@marcusmoonstein242

29 күн бұрын

@@rinkohorowitz Your final paragraph contains a reasonable point about the mindset of the criminal when committing the crime. However, I think it's an analogy that doesn't apply to hate crimes. If your murderer hates you because of your race or because he believes you stole his girlfriend is irrelevant in my opinion. I think the point is that he hated something about you enough to kill you. But I did find your comment about "white privilege" to be interesting because it raises one of the most disturbing aspects of hate crimes. While in theory any race can hate any other race and commit a crime for that reason, we all know that in practice these laws target a specific racial group. A frightening number of people believe that only white people can be racist. How often do non-white people get charged with a racial hate crime? Is this because they never commit such crimes, or is it because we find excuses for them when they do? Is every crime where the perpetrator was white and the victim black automatically a hate crime? Does the same apply when the perpetrator is black and the victim white? Or does the court actually have to prove the motive for the crime?

@rinkohorowitz

29 күн бұрын

@@marcusmoonstein242 To clarify, I don’t believe that only white people can be racist. Nor that they cannot be poor or marginalised for that matter. White privilege although being a loaded term, refers to the privilege afforded by white people in everyday life. Most notably the lack of micro aggressions, police stops, lack of questions about whether they “belong” in the country, assumed inherent virtue in account of their ethnicity when traveling abroad especially in countries that were once colonised, benefitting from positive messaging in the media, whether or not it’s historically accurate or factually true etc. About the analogy, it’s more to do with utilitarianism. The fact that if someone is willing to kill someone because of ethnicity. They will do it to others of that same ethnicity due to bigoted beliefs. So by punishment them more often and more harshly you are setting a precedent and preventing harm to wider society. As for your last paragraph, I do not have the statistics on this, but it is an interesting question. I would make a normative statement and say that it should be treated as the same, but human biases get in the way. I brought up in another thread a correlation that I saw that most free speech absolutists and deniers of the impact of hate speech/crimes tend to be white Europeans/Americans. I also asked why it was that they deny the importance of tackling hate speech and the harm inflicted by hate crimes when it is targeted towards non-whites, yet claim that a black man attacking a white man is a hate crime. Not only is this hypocrisy, but the implied belief being that only white people can experience hate crimes, and hate crimes against non-whites are justified due to being inherently “lesser” than their counterparts of white European descent or visage. This may or may not be true of most white people, but this is what is right that they believe based on how they argue against the importance or real world impact of hate crimes and the significance of hate speech, and the sheer vehemence with which they do so, despite being the least likely group to be a victim of either, in both the past and the present.

@filipstamate1564

26 күн бұрын

@@rinkohorowitz Yeah, the thing is you can claim you saw that kind of hypocrisy, and I can also claim that I see the exact same kind of hypocrisy coming from the other side, where hate-crimes against whites are dismissed as non-existent while pretty much every crime against a minority by a white person is investigated as a hate-crime. And that really is the most publicly accepted view, that if a white person commits a crime against someone of a different color it must have been because of hate. But of course, you'd just brush that of as "human biases", right? And you're definitely not hypocritical, right? Talking about vehemence and arguing about the impact of hate crimes, you don't seem to have a problem that "hate" is never defined in any way and left open to interpretation, perhaps just so it can be applied whenever and however. Could it be why it appears that some are "less likely" to be a victim of it? Could it be why it's OK to have articles and books published about abolishing the white race and how all whites are evil? Could it be why public speeches of people saying they're dreaming of **lling whites are not considered hate speech and investigated by the police? Nah, surely not. It's all about micro-agressions. Can't say I'm surprised that someone starting their speech with "in the current year" and "micro-agressions" would have this kind of beliefs. The standard speech of someone who would put "micro-agressions" above actual crimes, who would argue that actual criminals shouldn't be in jail, but people who say hurty-words should.

@rinkohorowitz

26 күн бұрын

@@filipstamate1564 Hate crimes against white people are not dismissed. They are regularly investigated as hate crimes. This is a common talking of white supremacists. The fact is that white people make up the majority of the population, and so committing a crime against them doesn’t automatically mean it is a hate crime. When it comes to white on minority violence, the possibility of it being a hate crime is high, because we either get an explicit statement from the defendant saying that it was hate motivated, or that we can glean that from internet posts, political affiliations etc. Additionally, hate crimes have historically been perpetrated by white peoples against minorities because, and not to get too existential here, but most hate crimes are driven by a sense of loss or sense of disadvantage in regards to race, which creates hatred for certain groups. In short, stop trying to be a victim; white people are not victims of anything other than individual crimes. Understand that minorities are always going to be more at risk of senseless violence from white people than the other way around. That’s why the government specifically highlighted white supremacy as a national security issue and not any other form of racial supremacy. I don’t condone hate crimes against anybody. But I’m not going to allow white people to act like victims when they have genocided almost every race on the planet for the most inane reasons while forcing everyone to live in their dystopian racial framework. Hate is pretty well defined in the law. Again it’s white supremacists and other racial supremacists who try and politicize it and try to obfuscate the definitions in order to justify their crimes. You clearly don’t understand what a micro aggression even is, you have just been told to dismiss by your far right idols. Nobody is saying they are worse than crimes. It’s just evidence of white privilege as micro aggressions are what minorities go through almost every day. And I don’t care whether or not people are making speeches saying they are dreaming about unaliving whites or making books claiming that they’re evil. That’s their freedom of speech. You’re a hypocrite for getting angry at that but not getting angry at white people who said worse things in the past and are STILL saying the same things today, even on this very platform, the KKK who have been unaliving and oppressing black people for 137 years, Japanese internment camps, the Trail of Tears and “Manifesting Destiny”, multiple wars in the Middle East, race science, the “War on Drugs” (which was really a war on black people), slavery etc etc. According to you, free speech is fine for you to have but your political opponents shouldn’t have free speech because they say things that hurt your feelings. While going on to complain that the other side wants to silence your freedom of speech because what you say hurts their feelings. Are you really not seeing the hypocrisy, irony and overall ridiculousness of your position? And your last statement is just a straw man argument. I have never heard that and I never said that myself nor did I imply that. But when you can’t attack the argument just make up another one that’s easier to argue against, I guess.

Hate is and should be irrelevant to the law. This all stems from the philosophy that 'it's what on the inside that counts" or "Words are violence". Lawyers can hate their clients, people can hate each other (for any reason they want), or hate the government or corporations. The law should be about punishing people's bad actions, not their bad thoughts. I hope this Irish law doesn't past.

@alanjm1234

Ай бұрын

Right now it's "Words are violence" so you can be imprisoned for what you might say. Coming next is "silence is violence." Then they'll jail you for saying nothing at all...

@Gitn2it

Ай бұрын

Is killing someone because they are black, worse than killing someone for no reason at all?

Bravo ! The best ever defense of free speech!

How can they have a law against hatred if they can't define hate?

Well said Andrew.

Here in the US, governments have made up the nonsensical term “assault weapon” as a means of evoking fear among the gun ignorant. Like “hate speech,” “assault weapon” also has no agreed-upon definition, because it is not a term used to describe something observed but is a term in search of a politically-expedient meaning.

@user-pj5ub5cp9k

Ай бұрын

Nonsense, "assault weapon" is easily definable. "Hate speach" isn't.

@Jerry_Fried

Ай бұрын

@@user-pj5ub5cp9k No two jurisdictions define “assault weapon” the same way. That’s because it’s a made-up term with no technical definition. If it’s easily definable, define it.

@thelordakira

Ай бұрын

@@user-pj5ub5cp9k Who decides what is hate speech , i read and hear hate from the left everyday. if you hear this. bla bla, you are a cis white male,, that is hate speech. it is used as a prerogative.

@user-pj5ub5cp9k

Ай бұрын

​@@Jerry_FriedRifle capable of firing multiple rounds.

@user-pj5ub5cp9k

Ай бұрын

​@@thelordakiraNonsense. That's not hate speech.

Thanks Andrew. Crystal clear as ever.

Ok, but what is the most effective defense against the gradual errotion of free speech!? It seems like it's only going in 1 direction. Seemingly easy to take away, but impossible to get back!

Well said sir and thank you. It’s extremely useful to have someone better with language help others find theirs to push back against this monstrosity.

“Hatred means hatred” Brought to you by the same woke people who created the nonsensical “ a woman is a woman who identifies as a woman “ 😂

Hate is natural Hate is healthy Repression is not

@VolkColopatrion

Ай бұрын

Hate is bad but repression is worse

@pamelaroyce5285

Ай бұрын

@@VolkColopatrionhate is an emotion, and natural. Harmful behavior that is criminal crosses a line. But people are entitled to have emotions. They’re natural.

@CrystalShadow

21 күн бұрын

Anger is a healthy emotion. It can lead to a resolution of problems, it gives you energy, and it is perfectly natural.

Hatred is just a social construct 😂

What is stopping some of these individuals from accusing you of these “crimes” because they just don’t like you not because they were offended. Fining and putting people in jail and depriving average people from making a living for something so easily corruptible is not only just wrong it’s malicious.

I hate liver etc. Most people hate and love and like and dislike etc etc etc etc Freedom of speech should mirror that in a continuum.

@georgehetty7857

Ай бұрын

HATE , liver or dislike the taste / texture?

@Slumbert

Ай бұрын

@@georgehetty7857 well, as a kid I hated it, and I haven't tasted it since.

I couldn’t have articulated it better Andrew! You’re a voice of reason and intellect and I wish the rest of us had the balls to be so expressive!

Bravo Andrew, bravo!

"I literally warned you about this in a book set 40 years ago" - George Orwell (unconfirmed quote).

Protected characteristics , I don’t much like attacks on anybody for being different but when that difference it used to attack others I don’t like it either .

Triggernometry needs to get this speech broadcast on commercial UK TV prime time.

Hear, hear 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

If you centralize power too much, the corrupt will corrupt it.

@hanswoast7

Ай бұрын

And our new digital world provides lots of new ways to have power. Dont get me wrong, I am quite the nerd. But what we currently are enabling by gathering data is the wet dream of all surveillance police states. Digital services should be decentral and end-to-end-encrypted by default. Otherwise they will be misused sooner or later, since they provide a form of power.

Insanely correct !

Against a person or a group with "protected characteristics"? Exactly WHO decides which "characteristics" are protected?

"Criminal Justice" Get it ?????? "Criminal lawyers", "Criminal legislation".

This is absolutely excellent and so intelligent.

Yes. Every one and each of these totalitarian laws should be abolished.

They are doing salami politics worldwide to see what can get to stick

Absolutely brilliant!

Very intelligent argument

“for the common good” the rallying cry of every dictator, tyrant and totalitarian throughout history !!

So cogently expressed, here here and shame on anyone who says otherwise!

5:07 “What starts with the chilling of free speech ends with the criminalisation of dissent” This is the most important sentence here and should be a fridge magnet on every freedom-loving household in the country.

I see Doyle, or Triggernometry, I like Two for one, thanks gang!

want the 90’s back, when it was ok to run around in a darkthrone shirt with „hate them“ on it.

There should be NO protected groups or characteristics - none. This does away with equality under the law, the basis of our legal system. So if I choose to identify as a woman, or claim to be gay etc., I get special protection against 'hurtful' words? Bollocks.

Bravo Andrew! … a breath of fresh air, as usual. Thank you.

_Merely_ causing offence cannot be the business of legislature. You _cannot_ criminalise hurting people's feelings.

I was raised with, "sticks and stones can break bones, but NAMES will never hurt." Way past time to reteach that.

Thankyou Andrew.

Protected characteristics seems a cornerstone for the definition. This seems peculiar to me. Hatred is surely more of a base emotion?

Well expressed and justifiable concern.

How are you proposing to act in order to ditch those laws?

Amen to that!!!

If you take away a man's ability to complain with his words, all you leave him is the ability to protest with his fists.

Thank you Andrew! You are proof of the value of a classical arts education.

Many years ago, Molly Ivins, a popular female comedian whose column appeared in many newspapers and magazines in Texas once commented about hate speech laws (which were just starting to appear): "the answer to hate speech is not LESS speech, it's MORE speech"

As a historian specializing in European history, and know well the historical background to the rise of modern ideologies of freedom, I fully agree with you.

He looked at me in a hateful way. He was thinking hateful thoughts about me.

Thats really bonkers

Well said ❤

Hate crimes are thought crimes (or even worse, emotion crimes).

word.

Thank you for this

Well said. We already have laws that outlaw the incitement to attack someone, or the stalking of someone, or abusing someone such that they feel threatened. We do of course need to outlaw not giving someone a job because they are black for example. And teachers who display persistent, deliberate racist behaviour should not be allowed to teach. Equally, a teacher who persistently abuses someone should not be allowed to teach. However, we should not outlaw being rude to a black person where reference is made to skin colour. People have been rude to me in the past. Why is a black person more important? This creates resentment and, ironically, hatred.

@CrystalShadow

21 күн бұрын

It’s like an over correction. I believe racism is taught not something one is born with. There are folks who look at other races as their equal and see the good in them. There is also an opportunity to learn something new. I don’t understand how shaming “whitey” by labeling us natural born racists fosters love.

@StillAliveAndKicking_

20 күн бұрын

@@CrystalShadow Agreed. And isn’t saying that a white person is racist because they have white skin racist?

😎🤙 yep...fairly ridiculous times.

"When people have nothing to do they will make money out of a strange notion of hate." Pettersson

100% agree.

well said sir.

I identify as an attack helicopter how could you know it?

@WonderfulWorldofAwesomeness

Ай бұрын

Cringe

@alanjm1234

Ай бұрын

What are your pronouns? Chopper?

Brilliant Andrew. Gotta admit I'm watching Triggernometry more and more, and gb news less and less.

You can't take away peoples right to be assholes. -Simon Phoenix

Loving these

No one has the right not to be offended. Feeling offended is a feeling. Free speech has to include hate speech or speech that makes you feel bad. Didn't we learn this as children, sticks and stones will break you bones but names will never hurt you.?

In the mid-90s, I first encountered this phenomenon in San Francisco (California). Calling homeless people “derelict” was labeled “hate speech” by the ever-reliable political left. I knew that I was seeing the first step towards forced speech/censorship.

As usual incredibly well said Andrew keep up the excellent work

Ordinary people don't have the "Protected Characteristics" in law THATS THE PROBLEM!

Well said, and true and accurate

Surely the state is diplaying hatred by bringing down these hate laws.

When she said the common good I couldn't help thinking of Hot Fuzz when they all chant the greater good

@fromnzwhoisalsohalfindien

Ай бұрын

The woke zombie brigade

Well spoken.

How about the expression of disgust; is that allowed?

Discrimination laws, protected characteristics, any and all forms of hate laws. Abolish at once!

Isn’t pressing charges against someone an act of hate in itself?

"Rather than" + infinitive (instead of "rather than" + present participle) is the only true hate speech we should ban, Andrew.

Any law against any speech is abuse

We need you back on YT and the new media platforms, Doyley. Your stuff for GBNews is good but that tour with Douglas Murray that never kicked off, that could have been truly ace.