|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Mar 9, 2020 19:09:05 GMT
andy, you've got into a bad habit. When you read a post you don't agree with you post - starting with the words: "So you're saying..." or "So what you're saying".... and then print something completely different from what was actually said. Ming seemed to be upset that the Guardian wasn't providing an outlet for every viewpoint. Why would this apply to only the Guardian? Clearly all this make believe has gone to your head. |
|
flatandy
New Member
Posts: 44,425
Member is Online
|
Post by flatandy on Mar 9, 2020 19:31:01 GMT
So what opinions should the Guardian be forced to carry?
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Mar 9, 2020 19:51:58 GMT
It's providing them.
|
|
flatandy
New Member
Posts: 44,425
Member is Online
|
Post by flatandy on Mar 9, 2020 20:40:40 GMT
It's providing offensive opinions at the moment. The staff think it shouldn't. Why do you think it should be forced to continue?
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,025
Member is Online
|
Post by mids on Mar 9, 2020 21:07:17 GMT
Some of the staff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Mar 9, 2020 21:33:37 GMT
It's providing offensive opinions at the moment. The staff think it shouldn't. Why do you think it should be forced to continue? I don't. i think it should be allowed to continue. |
|
flatandy
New Member
Posts: 44,425
Member is Online
|
Post by flatandy on Mar 9, 2020 22:06:37 GMT
It's odd. Your opening post sarcastically commented on "eradicating dissenting opinions" because I said it was bizarre that the Guardian was publishing terf propaganda. Are you concerned that we are eradicating dissenting opinions generally, that somehow these people have no platform? Or are you concerned that the opinions are being eradicated from the Guardian? And if so, what's special about the Guardian?
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Mar 9, 2020 22:48:33 GMT
Terf propaganda. F*ck me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Mar 10, 2020 11:52:30 GMT
The Guardian staff are right. It's bizarre that the Guardian keep giving a platform for TERFs. Yes, absolutely if we are going to have an open inclusive tolerant society we need to eradicate dissenting opinions. How is saying that a media outlet shouldn’t give space to certain opinions “eradicating dissent”. It’s curious though the issues on which “dissent” becomes vital. If people were protesting the Guardian giving a platform to Holocaust deniers nobody would much care. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Mar 10, 2020 11:53:11 GMT
Are you saying that transphobic feminists don't have platforms in other places? I'd wager that Suzanne Moore would have no trouble getting her bile printed in the Telegraph or Spectator. No idea about transphobic feminists. Haven't seen one mentioned. But saying that because someone has outlets somewhere else makes it ok to supress their views in the guardian is a slightly odd argument. And if i was saying that transphoboc feminists don't have platforms elsewhere then words like "transphobic" "Feminists" "don't" and "platform" might have appeared in my post. Well it’s a valid argument. Free speech does not mean any and every space should be required to give you a platform. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Mar 10, 2020 11:54:46 GMT
and as for Van...she's become Mrs. Whataboutery. What about this what about that. Link? |
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Mar 10, 2020 12:43:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Mar 10, 2020 12:51:34 GMT
It was interesting that one of the banners protesting Polanski begged the question "Why does Polanski still have a career?"
That seems an odd question. He's a disgusting creepy rapist and coward, but we don't try to destroy people's careers: we use the law to bring them to account. In other circumstances, we would be pleased if say, a bank robber, turned his or her life around and became a successful restaurateur perhaps.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Mar 10, 2020 12:55:33 GMT
Polanski could have a second career as the head of a Scottish independence party.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Mar 10, 2020 13:02:44 GMT
Why should they? How is a newspaper deciding not to give space to a particular view “eradicating dissent”? |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Mar 10, 2020 13:05:02 GMT
It was interesting that one of the banners protesting Polanski begged the question "Why does Polanski still have a career?" That seems an odd question. He's a disgusting creepy rapist and coward, but we don't try to destroy people's careers: we use the law to bring them to account. In other circumstances, we would be pleased if say, a bank robber, turned his or her life around and became a successful restaurateur perhaps. It’s a fair question though? Asking about wider society’s morality. I mean he sodomised a child. It’s odd that if he were a regular Joe he would have to go into hiding if his neighbours learned of his crime, her because he makes films people just “shrug” and it’s no big deal. And can you come back from any crime? Not only has he never faced punishment but crimes against property can’t really be compared to crimes against the person. Not least when you were never punished for said crime. |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Mar 10, 2020 13:13:15 GMT
I think the spirit of our legal system is about punishment, restitution, sentience and rehabilitation. Yes, I think we have to accept that there are no crimes which render the perpetrator beyond redemption.
In this case, the cunt should have been made to go back and do his stir. I sort of see what the banner's driving at but I think it's a questionable line of attack from a moral point of view. Still, the French have let themselves down pretty badly here.
On a side note: are his films any good?
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Mar 10, 2020 13:24:38 GMT
Why should they? How is a newspaper deciding not to give space to a particular view “eradicating dissent”? Why should they? Bizarre question. because it's a valid opinion written by one of their columnists. And it's not the newspaper deciding not to give it space, It clearly has given it space. It's people trying to stop it publishing views they don't agree with: But it's the same from you. No attempt to explain why they shouldn't publish the article. No attempt to engage. just shut it down. |
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Mar 10, 2020 13:26:04 GMT
I think the spirit of our legal system is about punishment, restitution, sentience and rehabilitation. Yes, I think we have to accept that there are no crimes which render the perpetrator beyond redemption. In this case, the cunt should have been made to go back and do his stir. I sort of see what the banner's driving at but I think it's a questionable line of attack from a moral point of view. Still, the French have let themselves down pretty badly here. On a side note: are his films any good? China town was pretty good |
|
flatandy
New Member
Posts: 44,425
Member is Online
|
Post by flatandy on Mar 10, 2020 13:34:06 GMT
It was interesting that one of the banners protesting Polanski begged the question "Why does Polanski still have a career?" That seems an odd question. He's a disgusting creepy rapist and coward, but we don't try to destroy people's careers: we use the law to bring them to account. In other circumstances, we would be pleased if say, a bank robber, turned his or her life around and became a successful restaurateur perhaps. Polanski has evaded justice by running away. The law didn't bring him to account. Having not served his time, he shouldn't yet have the opportunity to be "turning it around". Particularly when there seem to be a number of stories that suggest that he also hasn't reformed. |
|
