Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's the left's main weapon in Europe. Harshening hate speech laws to include all sorts of things (except for hating on white people that is. In Sweden you can't even be fined for suggesting Swedes should be killed).
For all of Corybn's faults I have hardly heard him talk about 'hate speech', and hate speech laws are things no government in the UK are going to change, Tories or Labour. The same is probably true for all mainstream parties in Europe, because even the centre-right parties tend to be socially liberal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razza94
"Picking out of thin air", you mean using widely publicized examples? This isn't Breitbart, InfoWars stuff.
I mean you are not providing any figures to back up your assertions. I'm not interested in 'widely publicised examples', I am only interested in the stats at hand, and if you don't have any then your position is pretty ridiculous.
A reminder liberal is usually used in the US just to mean center-left, not classical liberalism. Anyway, where do you draw the line? Can a baker legally be able to refuse to bake a cake for a black-white couple? I'd say no in that instance, yes for gay marriage. But it's arbitrary difference, though there's nothing in Christianity against interracial marriage, unlike gay marriage.
I think a business has a right to refuse business to anyone, and customers have a right to boycott those businesses and damage their profits.
That's the left's main weapon in Europe. Harshening hate speech laws to include all sorts of things (except for hating on white people that is. In Sweden you can't even be fined for suggesting Swedes should be killed).
Has anyone suggested abolishing hate speech laws, like the US has? There's no fear a right-wing government could turn things around and use free speech restrictions on the left? The absolute free speech norm was more supported by the left than the right traditionally for that reason.
Our potential future Home Secretary has a long history of making racist comments about white people. Things could very well get worse with someone like her in a position of influence.
Indeed, she's batsh*t insane + can't keep any figures straight in her head. I use to play "the Labour game" as a joke. I make a peepy voice where a Labour supporter hears something offensive and then goes:
"Hate speech!
Racist!
Arrest him!
I'm from the Labour Party!"
That should be their election slogan
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Has anyone suggested abolishing hate speech laws, like the US has? There's no fear a right-wing government could turn things around and use free speech restrictions on the left? The absolute free speech norm was more supported by the left than the right traditionally for that reason.
Well our left has committed treason so they'd deserve to have their asses locked up if my side ever wins power. That's just fact. The entire left-wing media and politician brigade in Sweden hate this country. They're as bad as John McDonnell the entire bunch of them. I've been under a "Corbyn administration" regarding social issues for all of my life, even when the so-called "right" ruled. I know what it's like and it's not pretty.
I subscribe to social liberalism. I believe that a balance between the free market and a somewhat regulating government is needed for checks and balances to get the most out of capitalism without sacrificing equality of opportunity. I find too strong labour unions as damaging as unrestricted crony capitalism.
I support a strong (big) state in key areas like healthcare and education, but not in how people live their lives or are involved in commerce. And in many cases we have to go on a case-to-case basis. I have nothing against private railroad companies, but oppose private prisons.
I believe that a strong military is the best life insurance for any country, and I support restricted military intervention as long as it's legally and morally justified.
I think a business has a right to refuse business to anyone, and customers have a right to boycott those businesses and damage their profits.
That's a stupid policy. So white business owners could decide they don't like black customers and what happens if there's no boycotts? Obviously won't happen now, but that was the situation 50 years ago. Boycotts would have happened to businesses that did serve blacks and whites together.
But no, in general I don't think businesses should have the right to discriminate.
I think a business has a right to refuse business to anyone, and customers have a right to boycott those businesses and damage their profits.
See, I don't agree with this. I think a baker should be able to refuse to put a certain message on a cake, but no business should be allowed to outright refuse service to anyone based on their orientation or ethnicity for that reason alone. If I saw a business that said 'no blacks or gays allowed' then I would not consider that even remotely acceptable, and I am perfectly happy that laws exist to stop that from happening.
The lines can be blurred between what is and isn't acceptable though, but I suppose it is up to people's better judgement.
That's a stupid policy. So white business owners could decide they don't like black customers and what happens if there's no boycotts? Obviously won't happen now, but that was the situation 50 years ago. Boycotts would have happened to businesses that did serve blacks and whites together.
Modern social attitudes wouldn't allow something like that to pass off easily. This isn't the 1950's, people would be outraged and the media would be all over it.
Is there anything in your Constitution that allows the government to regulate who a business deals with?
See, I don't agree with this. I think a baker should be able to refuse to put a certain message on a cake, but no business should be allowed to outright refuse service to anyone based on their orientation or ethnicity for that reason alone. If I saw a business that said 'no blacks or gays allowed' then I would not consider that even remotely acceptable, and I am perfectly happy that laws exist to stop that from happening.
The lines can be blurred between what is and isn't acceptable though, but I suppose it is up to people's better judgement.
I understand the strong difference of opinion, it is an interesting debate. Perhaps I'm naive in assuming that the social values of society would win out in this kind of situation, without the need for the government having to get involved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
