Cancel Culture?

[rogerfederer]

He wasn't fined for calling an Irishman a leprechaun. He was fined mainly for sending an email containing various threats to assault. The reference to leprechaun just meant the offense was considered to be "racially aggravated".

If you'd got beyond the typical outrage triggering "it's PC gone mad" headline, you've have understood that.

Minstrone doesn't do detail, prefers simple headlines to fuel his fake rage response.

[jayn200]

Can you evidence that these individuals have severe mental health issues, or is this just your emotional / triggered response?

This is a casual conversation on an internet forum. I don't need to spend half a day gathering evidence every time I make a post. Do you really think that's how an internet forum works?

The post was made off of my observations. I will concede that the posts I am likely to see are the more outrageous ones that get more views because they are so extreme so that may skew my viewpoint.

I don't think anyone would argue that cancel culture is the result of a very far swing left and it will come back around the other way. I don't think that's even a controversial viewpoint. You could even argue that it is absolutely necessary to swing far to the left just to be able to come around to an acceptable centred position and I would probably agree somewhat with that statement but it's still annoying to deal with this tulip while we wait for it swing back to the centre.

If you don't believe me, we can bump this thread in 4-5 years and see if cancel culture has become stronger or toned down. I definitely think it will have toned down. Probably won't go away because there is some merit there but in the current form it is not sustainable.

[minestrone]

He wasn't fined for calling an Irishman a leprechaun. He was fined mainly for sending an email containing various threats to assault. The reference to leprechaun just meant the offense was considered to be "racially aggravated".

If you'd got beyond the typical outrage triggering "it's PC gone mad" headline, you've have understood that.

No, when you are pursuing that charge here if the 'leprechaun' was deemed not to be a racial then he would have got off with the abuse.

It's a fooked up system...

Neil Lennon assault case: an incredible verdict - Telegraph

[Paralytic]

If you'd got beyond the typical outrage triggering "it's PC gone mad" headline, you've have understood that.

You can't sat that! It's now "PC gone cognitively challenged".

[woohoo]

mmm haggis. Lovely stuff.

Have to agree with you on that point.

[NotAllThere]

Haggis eating

mmm haggis. Lovely stuff.

[NotAllThere]

He wasn't fined for calling an Irishman a leprechaun. He was fined mainly for sending an email containing various threats to assault. The reference to leprechaun just meant the offense was considered to be "racially aggravated".

If you'd got beyond the typical outrage triggering "it's PC gone mad" headline, you've have understood that.

[woohoo]

Scottish man fined for calling an Irish man a leprechaun

I mean, it's funny, but... it's completely fooked up.

And this is with the current laws, the new ones currently being made a conviction here will rely upon only a person feeling hurt...

Beware Scotland’s hate crime bill

Well I didn't know Scotland was changing it's law. Haggis eating, skirt waving bunch of dandies.

[minestrone]

Scottish man fined for calling an Irish man a leprechaun

I mean, it's funny, but... it's completely fooked up.

And this is with the current laws, the new ones currently being made a conviction here will rely upon only a person feeling hurt...

Beware Scotland’s hate crime bill

[Jog On]

We should therefore recognise that over many decades laws have been developed to safeguard freedom of speech and also try to prevent hate speech and people being unacceptable.

You have a parliament and representatives who help to contribute to a general definition of what is and isn't ok. Very few things are not ok, and those promoting them are no-platformed. I don't defend those wanting controversial viewpoints no-platformed, as that does go against free speech and the law protects for the right to state those opinions, such as pro-life anti-abortion groups.

The ideal scenario would be everybody getting alone with one another, respecting viewpoints and not trying to force a prescriptive lifestyle on to others.

Both very sensible points. There is nothing wrong with existing and pre-2016 hate speech/free speech laws. The best party will win based on the hearts and minds of the majority.