Laurence Fox feat. Elvis

VeevaVee said:
He’s going to end up prime minister isn’t he
Click to expand...
Forever in a tug of war with his chancellor and the leader of the opposition, Prime Minister Fox had hoped 2037 would have been a better year than the preceding ones. But with infighting in the House of Intelligent Thinking and failed negotiations with the Allied States of Scotchland and the Norf, it was only getting worse.

"Avast! Why must I reign over a nation that has lost its bottle?" Fox snapped out in front of his cabinet during his morning briefing over the repair plans for Air Force Loz. Mr Rabbit could only stare at the floor as Fox lunged forward at Miss Piggy because she must've urinated in his trousers again when he wasn't looking.

"Time for your afternoon sponging." The nurse called out, the sound of her opening the door causing Fox to fly behind his mattress on the floor.

"I used to be important..." he whimpered.

"Of course you were, Larry. Oh! Has someone had a little poop? Let's get that taken care of while we're at it!"
 
Freedom of voice has led us to a society of utter insanity. You can now stack any old drivel up against established concepts and standards and expect huge swathes of support. Nothing matters and everything weighs the same. Not even a criticism, just an observation.
 
dumbo said:
Freedom of voice has led us to a society of utter insanity. You can now stack any old drivel up against established concepts and standards and expect huge swathes of support. Nothing matters and everything weighs the same. Not even a criticism, just an observation.
Click to expand...
All it takes is to say that your view is more enlightened that the opposing one, and sit back. You don't have to back up anything you say - just challenge any dissenters to prove you wrong. When they can't because - well, how do you prove something that has no basis in reality to begin with - you can say this further reinforces your beliefs that you're more intelligent, and if they refuse to play your games you can accuse them of being close minded. It's like being able to bet on both sides of a really stupid coin toss.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
All it takes is to say that your view is more enlightened that the opposing one, and sit back. You don't have to back up anything you say - just challenge any dissenters to prove you wrong. When they can't because - well, how do you prove something that has no basis in reality to begin with - you can say this further reinforces your beliefs that you're more intelligent, and if they refuse to play your games you can accuse them of being close minded. It's like being able to bet on both sides of a really stupid coin toss.
Click to expand...
Well that's just wrong.
 
If I had this guy, Elon Musk and Hitler in a room together and I was allowed to punch two of them it wouldn’t be Hitler
 
dumbo said:
Freedom of voice has led us to a society of utter insanity. You can now stack any old drivel up against established concepts and standards and expect huge swathes of support. Nothing matters and everything weighs the same. Not even a criticism, just an observation.
Click to expand...

Not sure if serious but no I disagree, it's actually the opposite.

The only reason Fox or numerous other similar people have any airtime/support/platform is a direct result and symptom of the attack* on free speech. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction etc. So they build themselves a niche, alt platform built almost entirely on the premise that what they are saying is prohibited by the mainstream.

I'm definitely that way inclined myself, and certainly suspicious of those who intend to dictate what is and isn't allowed, so I found myself listening to what Fox had to say purely because he was being maligned for his comments. Fortunately I realised he's an idiot with nothing meaningful to contribute but others won't realise that.



*attack is too strong a wrong word but its 7am and I can't think the word I'm looking for, but I'm sure people get the drift of what I'm saying
 
I think people who don't believe in free speech should just say it. And then take a look at a nice list of countries where it isnt allowed.
 
Shamana said:
I think people who don't believe in free speech should just say it. And then take a look at a nice list of countries where it isnt allowed.
Click to expand...

Similar to the my body my choice fantasy about the vaccines, there is no country in the world that has totally unfettered free speech. And there are certainly no countries in the world where your speech can't have consequences for you outside of the legal realm.

This is all true to some extent, whether its the USA, Denmark, North Korea, Uganda or Saudi Arabia.
 
africanspur said:
Similar to the my body my choice fantasy about the vaccines, there is no country in the world that has totally unfettered free speech. And there are certainly no countries in the world where your speech can't have consequences for you outside of the legal realm.

This is all true to some extent, whether its the USA, Denmark, North Korea, Uganda or Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech was never about being without negative consequences . That's the price of free speech.
 
The ones that make me laugh are the free market capitalist libertarians who bitch and whinge about free speech. Then when somebody says something controversial and private companies react by disassociating themselves with said individual, they moan about cancel culture.

Either you want a free market or you want a government that protects your ability to say something offensive without consequences. Can’t have both mate.
 
Shamana said:
Freedom of speech was never about being without negative consequences . That's the price of free speech.
Click to expand...

So what is your point? I don't see what Fox is crying about then or what you're attempting to defend. Nothing has legally happened to him, since spouting his initial bigoted nonsense, he's continued spouting his bigoted nonsense.

As I said, there are pretty much no countries in the world where there isn't at least some restriction on free speech.
 
africanspur said:
So what is your point? I don't see what Fox is crying about then or what you're attempting to defend. Nothing has legally happened to him, since spouting his initial bigoted nonsense, he's continued spouting his bigoted nonsense.

As I said, there are pretty much no countries in the world where there isn't at least some restriction on free speech.
Click to expand...

It was really more about Dumbo's comment above. I agree nothing has legally happened to Fox. It was more about the principle in general.
 
Pexbo said:
The ones that make me laugh are the free market capitalist libertarians who bitch and whinge about free speech. Then when somebody says something controversial and private companies react by disassociating themselves with said individual, they moan about cancel culture.

Either you want a free market or you want a government that protects your ability to say something offensive without consequences. Can’t have both mate.
Click to expand...
You can't have both from our perspective, but for them it's never about ideology and idealism. It's always about how they can earn more money and ideology just becomes a means to an end and you can always pick and choose whichever suits your current needs in terms of earning more money. For them it doesn't matter because the only thing they really, truly believe in is the mighty dollar.
That's my take anyway.
 
Trequarista10 said:
Not sure if serious but no I disagree, it's actually the opposite.

The only reason Fox or numerous other similar people have any airtime/support/platform is a direct result and symptom of the attack* on free speech. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction etc. So they build themselves a niche, alt platform built almost entirely on the premise that what they are saying is prohibited by the mainstream.

I'm definitely that way inclined myself, and certainly suspicious of those who intend to dictate what is and isn't allowed, so I found myself listening to what Fox had to say purely because he was being maligned for his comments. Fortunately I realised he's an idiot with nothing meaningful to contribute but others won't realise that.



*attack is too strong a wrong word but its 7am and I can't think the word I'm looking for, but I'm sure people get the drift of what I'm saying
Click to expand...

How was Fox's free speech ever attacked in the first place? He has always been allowed to say the things he's said, as is anyone else.

This whole thing started because he was allowed to freely express what he likes on public forums like twitter and podcasts that were freely accessible to anyone who was interested, just like anyone else. He was then given the platform to broadcast his political beliefs on mainstream TV shows like Good Morning Britain and Question Time. He also had those political opinions reported across all the countries' biggest selling newspapers both at the time and ever since, which resulted in him receiving funding for a prospective political party through which he could try to act on his political beliefs. Most people literally didn't know who Lawrence Fox was until he was given the privilege of having his views broadcast to the entire country and beyond.

The supposed "attack on free speech" is largely a fantasy invented by people who don't understand what free speech means. Some of whom are then lucky enough to make a living complaining about their lack of free speech across multiple media outlets, whining about how a mainstream that voted in a PM who largely shares their political POV are ignoring their political POV.
 
Trequarista10 said:
The only reason Fox or numerous other similar people have any airtime/support/platform is a direct result and symptom of the attack* on free speech. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction etc. So they build themselves a niche, alt platform built almost entirely on the premise that what they are saying is prohibited by the mainstream.
Click to expand...

There is no 'attack on free speech'. We now live in a world where people have the same free speech rights as they have had at any point in history plus the channels and platforms that give them the means to amplify their voice with a potential to reach billions of people.

What Fox and his kind want is to be able to speak to the masses without the masses responding and telling him he's being a dick and talking shit. Apparently the freedom of speech of those with an opposing view constitutes an insidious cancel culture. In fact it is the obviously inevitable reaction to the nonsense these people spout, and it's freedom of speech campaigners such as Fox who are doing their utmost to stifle it by creating a culture war.

The irony is that Lawrence Fox has said the things he believes are prohibited in the mainstream on the most mainstream, publicly funded platform, the BBC. His words are printed in the mainstream newspapers as well as on the main news websites and social media channels. He's not a victim of anything other than people telling him they think he's in the wrong, that his personal experience of life differs considerably from that of others and his fragile ego can't handle it.

Trequarista10 said:
I'm definitely that way inclined myself, and certainly suspicious of those who intend to dictate what is and isn't allowed, so I found myself listening to what Fox had to say purely because he was being maligned for his comments. Fortunately I realised he's an idiot with nothing meaningful to contribute but others won't realise that.



*attack is too strong a wrong word but its 7am and I can't think the word I'm looking for, but I'm sure people get the drift of what I'm saying
Click to expand...
Fox is a guilty as anyone for attempting to dictate what people can and cannot say. He's founded a political party purely with the goal to enforce his view of how things should be onto the rest of us. The man is a hypocrite as well as a prick.
 
sullydnl said:
How was Fox's free speech ever attacked in the first place? People have always been allowed to say the things he's said, as is anyone else.

This whole thing started because he was allowed to freely express what he likes on public forums like twitter and podcasts that were freely accessible to anyone who was interested, just like anyone else. He was then given the platform to broadcast his political beliefs on mainstream TV shows like Good Morning Britain and Question Time. He also had those political opinions reported across all the countries' biggest selling newspapers both at the time and ever since, which resulted in him receiving funding for a prospective political party through which he could try to act on his political beliefs. Most people literally didn't know who Lawrence Fox was until he was given the privilege of having his views broadcast to the entire country and beyond.

The supposed "attack on free speech" is largely a fantasy invented by people who don't understand what free speech means. Some of whom are then lucky enough to make a living complaining about their lack of free speech across multiple media outlets, whining about how a mainstream that voted in a PM who largely shares their political POV are ignoring their political POV.
Click to expand...
Ha, beat me to it!
 
This thread is the first time I have heard of this twat. Looked him up on wiki and realized why. I haven't seen anything he's been in.
 
Free speech doesn't come with coercition to listen. No one has the right to impose his voice or image on others and when consumers widely decide that they won't waste their time with people like Fox then sometimes companies that makes money on the back of those consumers stop producing content with people like Fox. It's not "cancelling" but capitalism, if I try to sell a car and no one wants it, I find a new car to sell, I don't impose my product on unwilling consumers. That's the business side of this debate.

On the free speech side of things, Fox and everyone else can go in the streets step on a soapbox and yell their views to passerbys but they can't force themselves into private areas and share their inanities on an unwilling people. That's the public and private space issue which is strangely lost on some people.
 
The fact that a white male with 0 talent, and 0 endearing personality traits can get so much airtime complaining about a made up issue proves that white privilege exists.
 
If water was discovered for the first time tomorrow these cnuts would say it's poisonous. They exist purely to go against the grain and people enable them.
 
Solius said:
If water was discovered for the first time tomorrow these cnuts would say it's poisonous. They exist purely to go against the grain and people enable them.
Click to expand...
To be fair, depending on where you live that might be true.
 
He's shit. Both Farage and Tommy Robinson have far more about them. This isn't going anywhere.

EDIT - Even Griffin, actually, come to think of it.
 
DOTA said:
He's shit. Both Farage and Tommy Robinson have far more about them. This isn't going anywhere.

EDIT - Even Griffin, actually, come to think of it.
Click to expand...

220px-Peter_Griffin.png
 
sullydnl said:
How was Fox's free speech ever attacked in the first place? He has always been allowed to say the things he's said, as is anyone else.

This whole thing started because he was allowed to freely express what he likes on public forums like twitter and podcasts that were freely accessible to anyone who was interested, just like anyone else. He was then given the platform to broadcast his political beliefs on mainstream TV shows like Good Morning Britain and Question Time. He also had those political opinions reported across all the countries' biggest selling newspapers both at the time and ever since, which resulted in him receiving funding for a prospective political party through which he could try to act on his political beliefs. Most people literally didn't know who Lawrence Fox was until he was given the privilege of having his views broadcast to the entire country and beyond.

The supposed "attack on free speech" is largely a fantasy invented by people who don't understand what free speech means. Some of whom are then lucky enough to make a living complaining about their lack of free speech across multiple media outlets, whining about how a mainstream that voted in a PM who largely shares their political POV are ignoring their political POV.
Click to expand...
decorativeed said:
There is no 'attack on free speech'. We now live in a world where people have the same free speech rights as they have had at any point in history plus the channels and platforms that give them the means to amplify their voice with a potential to reach billions of people.

What Fox and his kind want is to be able to speak to the masses without the masses responding and telling him he's being a dick and talking shit. Apparently the freedom of speech of those with an opposing view constitutes an insidious cancel culture. In fact it is the obviously inevitable reaction to the nonsense these people spout, and it's freedom of speech campaigners such as Fox who are doing their utmost to stifle it by creating a culture war.

The irony is that Lawrence Fox has said the things he believes are prohibited in the mainstream on the most mainstream, publicly funded platform, the BBC. His words are printed in the mainstream newspapers as well as on the main news websites and social media channels. He's not a victim of anything other than people telling him they think he's in the wrong, that his personal experience of life differs considerably from that of others and his fragile ego can't handle it.


Fox is a guilty as anyone for attempting to dictate what people can and cannot say. He's founded a political party purely with the goal to enforce his view of how things should be onto the rest of us. The man is a hypocrite as well as a prick.
Click to expand...

Did neither of you read the asterix and point at the end of the post?

Honestly, what the feck...
 
Trequarista10 said:
Did neither of you read the asterix and point at the end of the post?

Honestly, what the feck...
Click to expand...

Yes, you said "attack" was too strong a word for what you meant. But whether you use that word or swap it out for a lighter word, your point is still wrong. I just used the word "attack" to be consistent with your post.

Our point is that the "attack" (or whatever you want to call it) on free speech that you claim resulted in the likes of Fox getting a platform largely doesn't exist. As demonstrated by the fact that Fox (or anyone else) has always been free to say whatever the hell they like. Nobody has curbed his freedom of speech at any point.

What has caused the likes of Fox to be given this platform is the seemingly widespread but erroneous belief that freedom of speech means freedom from criticism or consequences for what you say. That if you say something people don't like and suffer negative consequences as a result, your freedom of speech has been impeded in some way. And that delusion has (ironically) seen many people with Fox's beliefs have their opinions amplified and given undue weight, despite them not understanding the basic principles of the freedom they claim is under attack.
 
Last edited:
sullydnl said:
Yes, you said "attack" was too strong a word for what you meant. But whether you use that word or swap it out for a lighter word, your point is still wrong. I just used the word "attack" to be consistent with your post.

Our point is that the "attack" (or whatever you want to call it) on free speech that you claim resulted in the likes of Fox getting a platform largely doesn't exist. As demonstrated by the fact that Fox (or anyone else) has always been free to say whatever the hell they like. Nobody has curbed his freedom of speech at any point.

What has caused the likes of Fox to be given this platform is the seemingly widespread but erroneous belief that freedom of speech means freedom from criticism or consequences for what you say. That if you say something people don't like and suffer negative consequences as a result, your freedom of speech has been impeded in some way. And that delusion has (ironically) seen many people with Fox's beliefs have their opinions amplified and given undue weight, despite them not understanding the basic principles of the freedom they claim is under attack.
Click to expand...

You're being pedantic, because I actually largely agree with you. Obviously his freedom of speech in the legal sense has not been curbed, as he is not facing legal restrictions on his speech. Nor is he being literally physically gagged.

Where we agree is we're both talking about perception, i.e the perceived attack/restriction on freedom of speech is what makes him and others popular in an alternative/skeptic sub . As far as I'm aware the terms is used more generally than legal or physical restrictions, and includes the social consequences/political correctness backlash to speech, when used in the context of social commentators.

Honestly though this is a prime example of what's wrong with people and dialogue at the moment. Maybe ask someone to expand or clarify before launching into an irate response. We agree on more than disagree on, but I phrased something in a way you didn't like, and despite literally putting an astetix and disclaimer that I know it was phrased clumsily, I still get response picking apart my choice of phrasing.

To clarify. Fox and others are not popular because there is too much free speech, which paraphrasing is the original absurd point I was responding too, its because of the reaction to unpopular opinions or the social pressure to conform. My point is that both sides feed each other. When groups of people ounce on people who say something "wrong", it further pushes people down their existing belief system. Especially the tone its done. It's tribalism. Honestly the alt right and social justice/PC brigade just feed each other, and it seems impossible to try and have a genuine and constructive conversation.

Honestly the responses I got from you and the other guy really pissed me off. That's the problem. A few years ago that sort of reaction would have pushed me further and further down the skeptic-alt right line of thought. It doesn't now, as I've explored that avenue, but I'm telling you, it's exactly what pushes people to reinforce their existing or developing beliefs (and goes without saying works vice versa too, and anyone who spends too much time talking with alt righters will go further and further down the social justice belief system.

This is typed after a 12 hour shift and probably still a bit incoherent but please try and consider what I'm saying before trying to launch into an argument. I don't care who is right or wrong, I may be interested in an actual convo if its constructive, but mostly I just care that my point gets understood.
 
Trequarista10 said:
You're being pedantic, because I actually largely agree with you. Obviously his freedom of speech in the legal sense has not been curbed, as he is not facing legal restrictions on his speech. Nor is he being literally physically gagged.

Where we agree is we're both talking about perception, i.e the perceived attack/restriction on freedom of speech is what makes him and others popular in an alternative/skeptic sub . As far as I'm aware the terms is used more generally than legal or physical restrictions, and includes the social consequences/political correctness backlash to speech, when used in the context of social commentators.

Honestly though this is a prime example of what's wrong with people and dialogue at the moment. Maybe ask someone to expand or clarify before launching into an irate response. We agree on more than disagree on, but I phrased something in a way you didn't like, and despite literally putting an astetix and disclaimer that I know it was phrased clumsily, I still get response picking apart my choice of phrasing.

To clarify. Fox and others are not popular because there is too much free speech, which paraphrasing is the original absurd point I was responding too, its because of the reaction to unpopular opinions or the social pressure to conform. My point is that both sides feed each other. When groups of people ounce on people who say something "wrong", it further pushes people down their existing belief system. Especially the tone its done. It's tribalism. Honestly the alt right and social justice/PC brigade just feed each other, and it seems impossible to try and have a genuine and constructive conversation.

Honestly the responses I got from you and the other guy really pissed me off. That's the problem. A few years ago that sort of reaction would have pushed me further and further down the skeptic-alt right line of thought. It doesn't now, as I've explored that avenue, but I'm telling you, it's exactly what pushes people to reinforce their existing or developing beliefs (and goes without saying works vice versa too, and anyone who spends too much time talking with alt righters will go further and further down the social justice belief system.

This is typed after a 12 hour shift and probably still a bit incoherent but please try and consider what I'm saying before trying to launch into an argument. I don't care who is right or wrong, I may be interested in an actual convo if its constructive, but mostly I just care that my point gets understood.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry if it read as irate, I didn't mean for it to at all. If it seemed aggressive then that was just poor communication on my part, I didn't mean for it to read as anything other than a normal friendly CE forum counter-argument that would prompt a response. Maybe my posts can seem more curt than I mean them too.
 
Trequarista10 said:
You're being pedantic, because I actually largely agree with you. Obviously his freedom of speech in the legal sense has not been curbed, as he is not facing legal restrictions on his speech. Nor is he being literally physically gagged.

Where we agree is we're both talking about perception, i.e the perceived attack/restriction on freedom of speech is what makes him and others popular in an alternative/skeptic sub . As far as I'm aware the terms is used more generally than legal or physical restrictions, and includes the social consequences/political correctness backlash to speech, when used in the context of social commentators.

Honestly though this is a prime example of what's wrong with people and dialogue at the moment. Maybe ask someone to expand or clarify before launching into an irate response. We agree on more than disagree on, but I phrased something in a way you didn't like, and despite literally putting an astetix and disclaimer that I know it was phrased clumsily, I still get response picking apart my choice of phrasing.

To clarify. Fox and others are not popular because there is too much free speech, which paraphrasing is the original absurd point I was responding too, its because of the reaction to unpopular opinions or the social pressure to conform. My point is that both sides feed each other. When groups of people ounce on people who say something "wrong", it further pushes people down their existing belief system. Especially the tone its done. It's tribalism. Honestly the alt right and social justice/PC brigade just feed each other, and it seems impossible to try and have a genuine and constructive conversation.

Honestly the responses I got from you and the other guy really pissed me off. That's the problem. A few years ago that sort of reaction would have pushed me further and further down the skeptic-alt right line of thought. It doesn't now, as I've explored that avenue, but I'm telling you, it's exactly what pushes people to reinforce their existing or developing beliefs (and goes without saying works vice versa too, and anyone who spends too much time talking with alt righters will go further and further down the social justice belief system.

This is typed after a 12 hour shift and probably still a bit incoherent but please try and consider what I'm saying before trying to launch into an argument. I don't care who is right or wrong, I may be interested in an actual convo if its constructive, but mostly I just care that my point gets understood.
Click to expand...

I think this point is spot on, but I think it's also important to recognise that the 'omg they're attacking my free speech' takes do not exist in a vacuum, but are a deliberately adopted ploy to create a threat to rally against; they're a part of that tribalism rather than an objective assessment of the discourse. I don't think you're suggesting otherwise, but I think when we see things like the Government try and force universities to enshrine free speech based on supposed infringements that never happened it's worrying how much the culture war bollocks has seeped into the mainstream.
 
Trequarista10 said:
Did neither of you read the asterix and point at the end of the post?

Honestly, what the feck...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I did. It was semantics. You meant something less powerful than 'attack', but couldn't think of a suitable word. I took that into consideration, but the rest of your points still stand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.