Laurence Fox feat. Elvis

sullydnl said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think either of our replies were irate, they were probably just not what Trequarista wanted to read, despite wanting a conversation on the issue. Apparently just having a differing view makes us part of a angry mob/brigade.
 
Last edited:
Olly Gunnar Solskjær said:
s3Nlx5h.gif
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Fox has never wanted "dialogue" or discussion. He wants to rant and rave about his right to free speech being blocked whilst simultaneously demanding that others curb their own free speech if they disagree with him (by keeping quiet if they have a problem with what he says). The closest he's ever gotten to having dialogue with an opponent is to try and take the piss out of them, or blow his dog whistle.

feck Laurence Fox. Discuss...
 
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...

1. No employee has free speech at work. For example, if you start yelling slurs in your office, you will (probably) (rightfully!) be fired, but cannot be prosecuted.

2. Employers can also indirectly control speech away from work (which is what a majority of #cancelculture stories are about).

3. Employers can produce compelled speech from their employees (for example, Uber in California made drivers signal support for a change in law, every time they logged in to start their job, and used the results of this "survey" to show that drivers support the law)

4. Free speech can be quantified by the amount of money an individual or organisation has. Buying advertisements and media outlets, or lobbying and donating to politicians, to promote your views and oppose others' is all a part of free speech, any restriction on these activities (like antitrust enforcement or donation limits) is a restraint on free speech.

5. Most obviously, private internet companies can remove you for your speech.

So, the framing of "believing" in free speech is wrong. It is a narrow, negative right that applies in certain parts of life, and not in others. Like all liberal rights, it is constrained by the ultimate, underlying, liberal right - the right to private property.
 
NinjaFletch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah for sure. My primary method for trying to judge if I respect/trust someone is if I think they're genuine or not. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult, and sometimes I change my mind on people, but it's always what I'm looking for. Like there are figures on both the left and right who I may disagree with but I think are genuine in their beliefs and words. Then there's also a huge murky grey area where people are largely genuine, but may be tactical at times too, which depending on context a small amount may be somewhat acceptable e.g. a politician trying to appease certain elements of the voter base.

Then you've got three maybe four types of outright delibarete agitators and narrative pushers. Firstly, the pure provocateur, like a Milo Yiannopolous. Then there's the opportunists, like a Rubin or Lozza Fox. I suppose you could also seperate the opportunists into those who do so consciously and those who subconsciously shift further to the extreme as it just so happens to be good for their income/career, but I suspect most are a mix of both. Then you've got the actual ideologues who are motivated to further whatever cause they believe in. I'd say Shapiro, as much as hes a whiny little cnut, is a genuine Conservative ideologue, and pushes a narrative or lies if he believes it helps his team. Then beyond that there's the ideologues who really construct and push the narrative. They usually aren't the mouth pieces either, and most of them probably don't even have much of a public profile, but they are the financial backers, the editors, producers etc. People who have huge vested interest in pushing a narrative.

It's why I like say both Russell Brand and Jordan Peterson, and I like both Owen Jones and Peter Hitchens, because although they all have hugely different viewpoints I judge them all to be genuine characters.

sullydnl said:
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.
Click to expand...

No worries, I probably was being over sensitive.
 
Trequarista10 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You responded to my opinion with the popular and derisory refrain "not sure if serious".

And then you offered Newton's Third Law of Motion as evidence that attacks* on Lozza's free speech only made him stronger. A law that applies to physical bodies in Classical Mechanics.

*you doofus.
 
berbatrick said:
1. No employee has free speech at work. For example, if you start yelling slurs in your office, you will (probably) (rightfully!) be fired, but cannot be prosecuted.

2. Employers can also indirectly control speech away from work (which is what a majority of #cancelculture stories are about).

3. Employers can produce compelled speech from their employees (for example, Uber in California made drivers signal support for a change in law, every time they logged in to start their job, and used the results of this "survey" to show that drivers support the law)

4. Free speech can be quantified by the amount of money an individual or organisation has. Buying advertisements and media outlets, or lobbying and donating to politicians, to promote your views and oppose others' is all a part of free speech, any restriction on these activities (like antitrust enforcement or donation limits) is a restraint on free speech.

5. Most obviously, private internet companies can remove you for your speech.

So, the framing of "believing" in free speech is wrong. It is a narrow, negative right that applies in certain parts of life, and not in others. Like all liberal rights, it is constrained by the ultimate, underlying, liberal right - the right to private property.
Click to expand...

Depends on the job. As a rapper, primary school teacher or parisian waiter you can get away with saying almost anything.
 
TWEET: Fox posts "Chart 1 - Communist coercive methods for eliciting individual compliance."


But, yeah, we should have open dialogue with this guy.
 
horsechoker said:
My favorite take



Do the right live in a different reality?

Thank God comrade Boris is our leader.
Click to expand...

Whether through necessity of the pandemic or otherwise, Boris Johnson's domestic policies have the most left wing of any PM since the 70's.
 
He's moaning about pupils having to wear masks now in school.

Having browsed through a few comments from the pupils on twitter land they seem quite cool/content with the idea of wearing masks though.
 
Farage and Fox!! ... the dream ticket... Boris beware of the Great Gammon Uprising! The Gee-Gee Up party, coming (2024) to a constituency near you.
 
Shamana said:
Well its certainly been my personal experience. Its was somewhat tounge in cheek though.
Click to expand...
Just on the teacher bit: In Denmark you're told that you're essentially representing your municipality (if you're in a public school) which means that anything you say in public (be that online, at work, in a newspaper column etc.) shouldn't be at odds with the municipality's values. Furthermore, you are not allowed to mention e.g. pupils in a way that makes it possible for others to identify them.
There's a whole thing you have to read and agree to before you start working as a public employee (which obviously includes teachers).

The Parisian waiter thing I guess was a joke about the French being rude or something, because I can't say I believe waiters can say anything without being fired as it's quite clearly bad for business to have waiters going around being rude to customers.
 
To be fair French waiters can get quite arrogant over the pronunciation of chowdah.
 
Although not in France, Kevin Hart did get that waiter fired after an argument over a pubic hair in his food.

This may have been a movie.
 
Shamana said:
Depends on the job. As a rapper, primary school teacher or parisian waiter you can get away with saying almost anything.
Click to expand...

Rappers get being banned for performing at venues all the time & entering certain countries, their tour buses are searched constantly, having the things they say in rap lyrics being used as evidence in court. That's before you take into account that rap music is the reason for the 'explicit' sticker placed on albums, and in the 90's was banned from being played on any form of mainstream media in certain places.
What a bizarre comment.
 
dumbo said:
He knows feck all about feck all, and it doesn't even matter.

His great rhetorical contribution, that he uses again and again and again, of " They are the EXACT thing they accuse you of. " as an argument is literally:
586196dcb0cf66093039efb6722916a9.jpg


They lament the decadence of wokeness, and damn postmodernism and Critical Theory as decayers of values, and yet these lot are responsible for the most cynical, nihilistic displays of depravity for depravity's sake. They are artlessness, witlessness; they are rats feasting on a soiled nappy and Auschwitz selfies. They contribute nothing of nothing, and the only evidence of their continued continuing is in the wasting of the time and effort of others. Ex nihilo nihil fit, plus they are fecking cnuts.
Click to expand...
This comment is fecking gold.
 
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...
Shamana said:
Depends on the job. As a rapper, primary school teacher or parisian waiter you can get away with saying almost anything.
Click to expand...
:wenger:

Really odd observations to make in this thread.
 
villain said:
Rappers get being banned for performing at venues all the time & entering certain countries, their tour buses are searched constantly, having the things they say in rap lyrics being used as evidence in court. That's before you take into account that rap music is the reason for the 'explicit' sticker placed on albums, and in the 90's was banned from being played on any form of mainstream media in certain places.
What a bizarre comment.
Click to expand...

Rappers are artists, would anyone make the same point about filmmakers? A large amount of moves contain things that are questionable outside of an artistic context.
 
Maagge said:
Just on the teacher bit: In Denmark you're told that you're essentially representing your municipality (if you're in a public school) which means that anything you say in public (be that online, at work, in a newspaper column etc.) shouldn't be at odds with the municipality's values. Furthermore, you are not allowed to mention e.g. pupils in a way that makes it possible for others to identify them.
There's a whole thing you have to read and agree to before you start working as a public employee (which obviously includes teachers).

The Parisian waiter thing I guess was a joke about the French being rude or something, because I can't say I believe waiters can say anything without being fired as it's quite clearly bad for business to have waiters going around being rude to customers.
Click to expand...

Maage I was more jokingly referring to the Mr. Garrison type teachers at my hillbilly primary school up here in Nordjylland and my teachers at my hillbilly gymnasium in Dronninglund. I know standards have changed with the times. And yeah the Parisian waiter thing was about how casually rude they can be, which is something Ive noticed the times I've been in Paris. I wasn't being 100% serious. There probably isn't any employment where you garaunteed 100% free speech absolutetism. Unless perhaps are you self-employed in a free speech magazine and I guess even in that case there would be restrictions by law.
 
Last edited:
dumbo said:
You responded to my opinion with the popular and derisory refrain "not sure if serious".

And then you offered Newton's Third Law of Motion as evidence that attacks* on Lozza's free speech only made him stronger. A law that applies to physical bodies in Classical Mechanics.

*you doofus.
Click to expand...

Yes too much free speech is a problem :rolleyes:
 
Trequarista10 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You misrepresented my opinion and responded to that opinion with the popular and derisory emote ":rolleyes:".

And then didn't even do me the good grace of offering up an entirely irrelevant scientific law to back up the snark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.