Utopia Talk / Politics / Britain has a thought police now

Aeros Member	Thu May 03 14:25:05 Now you are not only allowed to say controversial things in public, you also cannot speak wrongthink in private. Remember, Big Brother is watching. Always. Once you become a thought criminal, you will always be a thought criminal and eventually you will be found out. And you will be destroyed. God bless the United Kingdom. A diverse and tolerant place. And if you disagree with what we say is good, well you'll just have to disappear. http://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-43987148 Exeter University: 'Why I revealed my friends' racist WhatsApp messages' "It went from crude humour to racial slurs. Awful things were said about rape. Every group was targeted." Exeter University student Arsalan Motavali is talking about the WhatsApp group he was in with fellow members of the university's law society. "[The messages] started to get progressively worse after certain people were added." Five months on and several of them have been expelled after Arsalan's post of their "vile" screen shots went viral. Speaking to Newsbeat, the 21-year-old said he had no regrets about his decision to go public. Rewind to November 2017 and Arsalan was a member of a WhatsApp group with other people in the university's Bracton Law Society But the tone of the messages turned nasty - and Arsalan decided to post some of them to Facebook. They were shared thousands of times. "It got too much for me so I just left the group chat and forwarded the messages to some of my [non-university] friends. "I told them about everything that had happened and they were horrified. Arsalan's friends advised him to complain to Exeter University, but he says he just didn't get round to it immediately. "I left it on the back burner for a while because I had essays to write, it was a busy time." Freedom of speech The next step was when Arsalan showed the messages to some of his university friends. He said they were horrified by what they saw: "We talked about going through the university but one of my friends had had a far worse situation and it was a five-month investigation and an outcome that was incredibly vague. "I've always been a massive advocate of freedom of speech [but] there is also an integrity you need to have as someone who wants to practise in the legal field. "You should know the consequences of the statements you're making." As well as being racist, sexist and bigoted, one of the messages targeted someone who'd been stabbed at university. "Ignorant jokes are one thing, and genuinely appearing to have some form of prejudice towards people of colour is a total other thing." Image copyright Arsalan Motavali After the investigation was finished an email was sent to students and staff by university officials. It explained expulsions, suspensions and other sanctions had been used. But there was no comment on how many people had been expelled. Arsalan says he thinks the investigation was handled well. "I believe it was, because what if in the future my kid goes for an interview with a law firm and sits opposite one of those individuals? "Regardless of how much they say they don't hold those views, those prejudices are still there - I've seen it first hand. "I don't think I've fixed [the problem] but I feel like a conversation has been opened up."
Seb Member	Thu May 03 15:35:16 Aeros: 1. It wasn't private though was it. The complainant was in the group. 2. It's not a thought crime, because, er, there's a tangible evidence base. 3. The university is a private institution and can apply whatever sanctions it likes provided it's in line with the contract they signed with the individuals. This clearly isn't a free speech issue, you have no right to he insulated from the consequences of your speech, and that may mean private institutions may not wish to associate with you.
Seb Member	Thu May 03 15:51:48 Also, on the watts app channel of a university society. So very definitely no expectation of privacy. If it's been advertised as such, it doesn't matter that the infrastructure isn't the unis.
obaminated Member	Thu May 03 15:55:34 So, you do not believe in free speech.
Seb Member	Thu May 03 15:55:43 So, to get this straight: Members of the organising committee of the universities law society used a social media forum associated with the society to publish racist remarks to other members of the rig committee, one of whom was offended, documented it, and brought it to the attention of the university which then investigated and expelled individuals for breach of contract (I'm guessing bringing into disrepute). And aeros thinks this is a thought crime, and private institutions should be forced to associate with individuals spouting racism.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Thu May 03 16:24:27 ~ George Orwell A Man Ahead Of His Time.
Aeros Member	Thu May 03 16:26:26 I am so glad I live in America where we realize you can't put limits on what people say. Encouraging this sort of behavior empowers petty authoritarians and puts a chilling effect on public discourse. The correct response would have been for this dude to call his friends out for their shenanigans and for the University to give them a stern lecture. Not to ruin their lives and future career prospects. Yet that is what they did and if they do it for petty suit like telling a new joke on whatsapp it's not so very far removed as you think to doing it for voting for the wrong political group like say UKIP
Seb Member	Thu May 03 16:29:17 Aeros: Are you fucking stupid? We've had over the past few years several threads on us unis doing exactly this.
Forwyn Member	Thu May 03 16:34:09 "private" Public university receiving public funding.
obaminated Member	Thu May 03 16:40:37 How about this, seb, do you believe in allowing offensive speech?
Sam Adams Member	Thu May 03 16:47:48 "Its ok for my imported migrants to rape and murder, but if a white guy says an unapproved word, its the end of the fucking world" -seb
hood Member	Thu May 03 17:04:18 "Also, on the watts app channel of a university society." Unless the article is wrong, this is blatantly false. Per the article: "Rewind to November 2017 and Arsalan was a member of a WhatsApp group with other people in the university's Bracton Law Society" This is not like a Facebook page sponsored by the University. This would be a private group created by students that is comprised of members of the law society. Very, very different than something created by the University.
kargen Member	Thu May 03 17:12:05 Speech even when it is offensive should be allowed. Doesn't mean there should be no consequences though. Part of exercising your rights is to do so responsibly. If someone takes exception to what you saying they have the right to respond. We also have to remember that the right to free speech doesn't include the right to a platform to speak from. For instance it Turtle took exception to anything one of us said here he would be within his rights to just boot us. We could still go stand on a street corner and spout off on whatever offended Turtle so free speech rights would not be violated by him kicking us.
obaminated Member	Thu May 03 17:21:40 Well, I was looking to trap seb because if you are a free thinker you are bound to offend someone. Telling me abortion doesn't kill children offends me, but i am not calling for you to go to jail or be fired for saying it. Free speech is free speech, unless it directly harms people ("hey string this nigger up!") then speaking your mind should be protected. But Seb doesn't believe that, because has evolved into a statist that cannot be reasoned with.
hood Member	Thu May 03 17:47:20 "Well, I was looking to trap seb" That was dumb. Seb has long been against free speech and unabashedly so.
obaminated Member	Thu May 03 17:49:47 But I don't think Seb is aware he is against free speech and free thought, I think he is unaware that if you are against offensive speech, then you are inherently against free thought which pretty much makes you a Stalinist.
Aeros Member	Thu May 03 18:59:17 My problem is in who gets to define what constitutes offensive. Yes, there are people who spout off and say stupid things. IMO though the response should be for people to respond by calling them on their bullshit. Not to just immediately bring in a social media lynch mob. Lets be real here, what is happening to "racists" is the exact same thing that happens to people who "insult the prophet" in the Muslim world, minus the actual lynching in the street. I get a distinct vibe though that we are not too far away from that level of political violence. This is the thing. The reason we allow idiots and racists to spout off about their idiocy and racism is because if we decided to try and make laws to punish them for it, we would by necessity have to create arbitrary definitions for abstract terms like "offense" and "racism". Then construct a bureaucracy dedicated to enforcing those laws. That puts you down the road to outlawing free thought and expression. For private institutions, if they feel the idiot speech is making them look bad, they should give a warning, tell the idiot you are making us look bad, stop it. If they persist, then go ahead and fire them. Social media has essentially made the threat to free expression worse, because now its possible to have a living record of idiot statements that lasts pretty much forever. I fear tremendously it will soon be impossible to hold elections in the coming decades as anyone who attempts to run will do so with the implicit threat that the stupid things they said on Twitter when they were 14 will be used against them when they run for Congress as a 40 year old. The rational response here is to be more open and understanding to controversial speech. Not less so. Nothing less then the viability of western democracy and the principles of natural rights are at stake.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Thu May 03 23:16:45 > Public university receiving public funding. Unless there exists a university that does not accept tuition paid by federally subsidized student loans, there are no universities that do not receive public funding.
shannon Member	Thu May 03 23:24:23 “you have no right to he insulated from the consequences of your speech,” and there we have Seb’s view of the world. There is no free speech, only different levels of consequences from Authority if it is unplusgood thoughtcrime. These young British men were talking amongst themselves. Some reffo decides to complain and they get expelled from a publicly funded university. The black man has the whip hand over the white man, just as Enoch Powell foretold.
Dukhat Member	Fri May 04 03:21:35 Aeros getting butt hurt over edge-lords getting punished again. Le Sigh.
Dukhat Member	Fri May 04 03:22:51 I'm not crying over some ignorant trolls who got their ass handed to them by being stupid enough to post on a very public forum. There are places to post that shit like here.
Seb Member	Fri May 04 04:56:41 Forwyn: No. Universities in the UK are not state owned. They are private institutions. Undergraduate courses are paid for by students. Obaminated: Far to complex a question to be framed that way. I wouldn't allow, for example, Muslim fundies to go about preaching the moral imperative of attacks on infidels. Note this falls below the standard of incitement to violence (they aren't saying you should attack, only that it is morally permissible). Is that against something merely offensive? In this case, it's not a relevant question. Limiting private institutions freedom to associate (and not associate) with whomsoever they like should only be done in extremis. Hood: 1. What that report says isn't inconsistent with what I wrote. If you look at the screen caps, the conversation is in regard to planning a soc event. So it's definitely about conduct in an official capacity. N.b. doesn't need to be sponsored by the university admin. Socs, legally are part of SUs which are often part of the Uni. If the soc members or officials set up the group in a carryingbput their functions then there's no defence. Even if they didn't, their behaviour in a carrying out their functions is also within legitimate scope. Only does this begin to become tendentious is if it was a number of people talking to each other in a private capacity. But even then this is still potentially in scope of contract with uni. For example, a firms can require workers not to have a relationship in the US. IIRC EU rights laws prevent this here but it is quite normal for universities and employers to have "bring us into disrepute" as a sanction carrying clause. Freedom of association is as strong a freedom and right as freedom of speech. 2. Saying I'm against free speech is like saying you are against free association in this case. It's nuanced. It always is. Rights often conflict, none can be truly absolute. Obaminated: That's a trap? Seriously? Oh bless. Aeros: Any private individual can decide what's offensive and who they associate with. Freedom of association. FFS. Eathpig: No UK university receives money from the federal govt. Shannon: *Sigh*. They were talking on the subject of uni soc business. This is a private matter between the university and the individuals. Should the state be permitted to legal impose the obligation on the university to enter into contract?
Seb Member	Fri May 04 04:58:58 To all: Historically the pro freedom and liberty stance has been to minimise state control over universities, and to allow private individuals and institutions to freely associate or not with whomever the wish. Here you are suggesting freedom of speech should trump that. So, should a university be permitted to withdraw their degree award to say, a plaigerist? Or should their right to free speech trump that too?
Seb Member	Fri May 04 05:00:56 It is a truly deplorable world you guys are setting up here: One where we are free to say what we like, but obliged by state power to do whatever the state compells us to do. I can see why Aeros & co like it: all talk and no action.
Seb Member	Fri May 04 05:45:09 Aeros: Thank God in the US students aren't expelled for racism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_University_of_Oklahoma_Sigma_Alpha_Epsilon_racism_incident
Seb Member	Fri May 04 05:46:26 https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/22/syracuse-university-expels-fraternity-over-racist-video
Seb Member	Fri May 04 05:48:39 http://www...ent-kicking-out-racist-student
Seb Member	Fri May 04 06:01:40 RE UK Universities status: http://www...uploads/2015/02/Code-Final.pdf 1.1 Higher education institutions (HEIs) are legally independent corporate institutions [i.e. private -Seb] that have a common purpose of providing learning and teaching and undertaking research. They also have an important role in contributing to economic growth through research and developing links with business and the community. The governing body is responsible for ensuring the effective management of the institution and for planning its future development. It has ultimate responsibility for all the affairs of the institution. Being entrusted with public funds carries some responsibilities, but fundamentally the relationship is that Universities are considered private institutions despire the creeping attemppts ot the State to quasi-nationalise them.
hood Member	Fri May 04 07:35:27 "Saying I'm against free speech is like saying you are against free association in this case." That would be true if I had every argued that the University shouldn't have been allowed to cancel attendance of the infracting students. I said nothing of the sort. So please stop blatantly lying because you think it makes a point. "If you look at the screen caps, the conversation is in regard to planning a soc event." And? Have you ever been a part of a fucking WhatsApp group chat? They're multi use and made on a whim. Just because it was being used to plan social events at the time of the screen shots doesn't mean it was at all a group chat created for the express purpose of supporting the University society.
Seb Member	Fri May 04 07:44:25 Hood: No the analogy still holds: I haven't ever said I'm against free speech just as you haven't said you are against freedom of association :-). If I just lied, so did you by implying I said you did. Perhaps we shouldn't bandy around such accusations. Perhaps we could stick to saying "you are wrong" rather than unsupportable bad faith accusations. "And?" And in that case it constitutes conduct of union business which Universities are supposed to regulate, irrespective of whether the group was explicitly created for that purpose. If the organising committee met at Starbucks, it wouldn't be exempt just as they were off uni property.
murder Member	Fri May 04 07:47:58 "There is no free speech, only different levels of consequences from Authority if it is unplusgood thoughtcrime." Everyone is for restrictions on speech. Including you.
hood Member	Fri May 04 07:48:07 "I haven't ever said I'm against free speech" Ok shitbag, nobody can ever infer from your numerous actions and comments very clearly against free speech as you very clearly being against free speech. Your actions arguing your beliefs are clearly just you playing devil's advocate... You've become useless again, so I will take your partial advice: you're fucking stupid.
shannon Member	Fri May 04 08:41:51 Seb, No the state shouldn’t have to make laws on this other than to protect the rights of citizens. The University authorities should also mindvtheir own fucking business. Expelling for unPC thoughts? Try defunding these wankers and see if they come around to the idea of free speech. Offensive language laws and their proponents can get fucked.
Sam Adams Member	Fri May 04 10:38:21 free association works for seb in this case and he loves it, after spending weeks saying starbucks has no such right. Lol what a fucking hypocrit.
Seb Member	Fri May 04 11:02:53 hood: "Ok shitbag, nobody can ever infer from your numerous actions and comments very clearly against free speech" When I have inferred about you, incorrectly, you call it lying. Your pitful resorts to accusations of bad faith and swearing are just a refusal to be responsible for your own errors. Shannon: "Try defunding these wankers" Largely we have. We fund UG teaching by giving loans to students and encouraging them to behave as consumers/customers in a market based system for undergraduate education. If other students as customers want this policy, why is it the states job to regulate universities and limit their powers as private institutions to require whatever conduct they like? I don't think there is the slightest case for interfering with universities in this case - racist views are not a protected class so if anything the case would be the other way. You snowflakes demanding limiting others freedoms in order to provide protection to be allowed to espouse racism... crazy. Sam: 1. Freedom of association is limited in the case where it is used to systematically discriminate against a particular set of individuals on the basis of their identity. That is one of the few limitations on freedom of association. 2. You may have noticed that Starbucks did not want to dissasociate itself from the individuals in question, and in fact decided to dissasociate themsevles from the rogue employee. You were the one arguing that Starbucks freedom of association should be limited because "waaa, they should let their employees be discriminatory".
Seb Member	Fri May 04 11:05:13 Freedom of speech is a limit on the state. It is not a gaurantee for a platform or a requirement that your speech be free from social and economic consequences of private people disagreeing with you. You can stand up and say "I don't believe in evolution, dinosaurs bones were planted by the devil, the world is only 6000 years old". It is not a curtailment of your freedom of speech if that rules you out of being a biology teacher.
Sam Adams Member	Fri May 04 11:18:19 So, freedom of association only applies to sebs special groups, when convenient. Lol dumbtard hypocrit.
Seb Member	Fri May 04 11:18:29 Also shannon, Universities are resopnsible for conduct of union officials on official matters, so clearly is their business!
Sam Adams Member	Fri May 04 11:22:09 Do you realize how retarded you sound? Its ok to discriminate against conservative values but not against liberal ones.
Sam Adams Member	Fri May 04 11:26:27 Its pretty clear seb doesnt want freedom, he just wants others to be forced to conform to his ways.
obaminated Member	Fri May 04 11:39:32 Seb is a stalinist. But im not sure if he is aware of it.
Seb Member	Fri May 04 12:29:04 Sam: I don't think refusing services to people on basis of religion, gender or race is a conservative value. In any case if they are, it's not values, it's specific action against individuals I'm against. In the UK the left is having one of its spasms of anti sematism. I'm against that. Are you for it as a "conservative value" Obaminated: Really? I recall Stalin being allup for discrimination against individuals according to race. I think he's got more incommon with you than me.
Nekran Member	Sat May 05 01:55:41 I love how Seb quietly and clearly explains his pov and Sammy resorts to grade school playground tactics. I mean I don't agree with the uni expelling people over this (well not based on the few excerpts I saw), but I do agree it is well within the uni's rights to do so. I make terrible jokes with my friends, but I'm not enough of a dumbass to make them in inappropriate places.
Seb Member	Sun May 06 18:06:29 Nekran: I'm in two minds about whether the uni should have expelled them. Ten years ago I'd have said "no, they shoulnd't that's an over-reaction", but then I'm white, with professional parents, and educated at a public* school and one of the top three universities in the UK. It's easy to look at what these guys were doing and say "that doesn't seem to harmful to warrant these consequences". What I have seen since, in life, and living as a minority (albeit an "elite" minority) in a foreign culture makes me tend to default the other way now. The systemic consequences of people being jerks like this is cumulatively huge to people from minority backgrounds - and often invisible. By way of example (just one, I could go on for ages), now so many go to universities, one of the key means of distinguishing yourself is extracurricular activities and positions of elected responsibility in clubs and societies. If you create an atmosphere of casual racism, or tolerate it, that has significant and serious impacts - albeit invisible and intangible ones (all the people put off) - that should be weighed against the more visible and tangible consequences of expelling a student. It also leads to a kind of double bias, where some kinds of people get to make mistakes without consequences because those making the decision erroneously weigh them as less consequential due to their limited experience or visibility of those consequences; while others would get soundly punished. One of the reasons universities come down heavily on plagiarism (for which you can certainly be expelled) is precisely because of the unfairness it creates; there is in many universities a zero tolerance policy. And that is because the consequences of plagiarism - both individual and systemically - are far more immediately understood by an academic faculty than the systemic consequences of casual racism would be by a non diverse faculty. Because these systemic and individual consequences of casual racism are the kinds of consequences that I just won't ever suffer, it's easy for me to downplay them or dismiss them simply because I have no reference frame to weigh up the life changing consequences of being sent down from university. Appreciating that now makes me very hesitant to say "oh, it's just a joke, nothing serious." Beyond that, in this case we are talking about law students, and I think a particular case can be made given the high public standards required of solicitors and barristers - they can't claim "oh, we didn't get it" in the same way that an engineering student might. They surely know about standards in public life, ethics, when they are acting in an official capacity, when they can have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Finally, these aren't kids. These are people over the age of 18 - adults - able to vote. I am very much against the infantilisation of universities into some sort of school like setting. I think they should be much more like workplace setting. This is even more the case as we shift in the UK to asking students as customers to apply pressure to universities on service standards. I would then say "well, what would your boss do if they found out that in planning the office Christmas party you were talking about black co workers as Slaves?". This isn't an attack on academic freedom - this isn't a nuanced argument of an academic nature made in an academic forum. Nor are they comments clearly made in a private setting or in a private capacity. So I think the university is both justified and, in the end, proportionate. Let them lost their credit and re-apply. They will learn more this way than being allowed to make serious errors without due consequence. *in the UK that means very old, posh and expensive, not state funded - the name dating from the 18th/19th century as in "he went to a public school rather than having a tutor".
hood Member	Sun May 06 18:40:38 "When I have inferred about you, incorrectly, you call it lying." No, you don't infer, you just ascribe positions. I have come out and plainly stated, many times, that companies are free to do whatever they please in terms of ending relationships with people over their crap, but also dislike the mob mentality that comes with these public hangings. "Your pitful resorts to accusations of bad faith" Do we need to go find evidence where you support punishment of speech? Not just in the freedom of a university to expel students, mind you. There are no accusations of bad faith. You have a typical british interpretation of "free speech" and it is anything but free.
Seb Member	Sun May 06 19:25:24 hood: "you just ascribe positions" As you ascribe me to be anti Free Speech. I infer, sometimes incorrectly, your position. Or does it go: "I infer, he assumes, you ascribe"? In any case, my point was that describing you as against freedom of association would be incorrect, as you describing me being anti free speech was. So suggesting that I was "ascribing" you a position is absurd. "Do we need to go find evidence where you support punishment of speech?" You will have come across the expression "the right to free speech does not extend to shouting fire in a crowded theater" I am sure. I don't subscribe to the position that rights are unlimited. They cannot be because rights conflict with each other regularly. As a result, no right can be absolute but will always be contextual. As a trivial example, free speech cannot be used as a defense for something that would otherwise be a crime. For example, committing a pump-and-dump share fraud could not be defended on the grounds that putting out false share information is a legitimate use of free speech: people's right to property and therefore the protections of fraud law in those circumstances trump the right for individuals to say what they like. The question is always one of rights and liberties in balance, and if you had paid the slightest bit of attention you would understand which rights I am balancing in those cases. This is one of the reasons I dislike codified constitutional laws with attempts to hard wire rights because any right codified in law always comes with a co-relational responsibility that must be enforced, limiting freedoms. The concept of constitutionally guaranteed rights is, in a modern era, a continental system of law that sits uneasily in the UK common law system. The UK is a common law system which is permissive not prescriptive - you are free to do everything which is not illegal; and the attempt to define constitutional rights in a system of parliamentary sovereignty doesn't work at all. Instead, one must take a nuanced view and decide what maximizes liberty as each law is created rather than trying to create an axiomatic set of meta laws. Anyone with a passing concept of systems engineering and Godel's incompleteness theorem will understand the limitations of the latter. Further, I think obsessing about constitutional rights often obscures, rather than illuminates, the path to liberty. Invariably rather than having a discussion about the merits of a law and it's impact on liberty, it becomes a discussion about whether the law fits with the process and framework rather than the desired outcome and principles of liberty. Over time arbitrary laws become substituted for the virtuous outcomes. And things that lead to injustice are deemed fine as they are compatible with narrowly interpreted meta laws, and the meta laws can be interpreted in ways that lead to injustice but the outcome is deemed just because they are the consequences of the laws. I appreciate for some of a more simplistic and dogmatic mindset, having to put effort into thinking about those kinds of complexities rather than a tick-box criteria based approach is undesirable. I'm sorry but I find that infantile, and I make no apologies for that. "There are no accusations of bad faith." You said I was lying, when at best you could claim I incorrectly inferred your position. Lying is an act of bad faith. You are making, as you often do, accusations of bad faith. The fact you think this isn't an accusation of bad faith makes me think either you don't know what bad faith is, or you don'y know what "lie" means. A lie is not an error. A lie is an intentional act to mislead. Now kindly fuck off. You've ruled yourself out of this conversation earlier with the necessary invective. As I've explained to Delude, I operate a one strike per thread with you lot. You don't display enough value in your posts to do more than that. Speak again next thread.
hood Member	Sun May 06 21:06:44 Oh dear... "For example, committing a pump-and-dump share fraud could not be defended on the grounds that putting out false share information is a legitimate use of free speech" Listen tard, nobody here has ever defended free speech to the point of committing fraud. Most of us understand context and the context of these discussions about free speech revolve almost entirely about people saying offensive things, not committing illegal acts because "free speech." Citing completely off topic matters that aren't exactly debate material does not count as supporting documentation to your position. If the idea hasn't been coined already: saying you hate nazis doesn't exactly make you tolerant; you can both hate nazis and still be a racist. Or, recognizing that there are some obvious, well-agreed-upon curtails to free speech doesn't actually equate to being a supporter of free speech. Free speech is my ability to call you a waffling cunt nugget without having every woman within a mile radius try to carve my heart out for being "misogynistic." They can hate me all I want, but there's nothing illegal or against the rules about it. "The question is always one of rights and liberties in balance" There is a difference between rights and offense. A black person has absolutely no rights that come into play when rugian calls said black person a nigger. The balance, in this (hopefully absurd) case, is rugian's right of free speech vs. nothing. Even were both rugian and this black person a member of the same university, see back to abso-fucking-lutely no rights being infringed on said black person. "The UK is a common law system which is permissive not prescriptive - you are free to do everything which is not illegal" And the UK system makes free speech illegal in some instances. This is something you support. "I'm sorry but I find that infantile, and I make no apologies for that." See: nazi dog dude. "You said I was lying" Let us run down the context of that comment. You said: "Saying I'm against free speech is like saying you are against free association in this case. It's nuanced. It always is. Rights often conflict, none can be truly absolute." This falsly implies that there is as much evidence that I am against freedom of association as there is that you are against freedom of speech. There are many instances of you defending limited speech (and not in a widely accepted way as you've attempted to portray it). There is no evidence that I am against freedom of association - in fact I usually am one defending it. See: every time a social network censors people and idiots suggest it be fixed. So you made the comment, attempting to somehow paint an equivalency between me sometimes taking issue with freedom of association (which I haven't) and you taking issue with freedom of speech (which you do). Are you suggesting you accidentally made a misleading statement? "Now kindly fuck off" Oh dear me. "You've ruled yourself out of this conversation earlier with the necessary invective. As I've explained to Delude, I operate a one strike per thread with you lot. You don't display enough value in your posts to do more than that. Speak again next thread." And yet you put a page down in response. Not just mudslinging, but actual arguments towards the topic. An unprovoked page, I might add. The only arguments I've made in this thread is: that you are not a supporter of free speech, whatsapp is not what you think it is (used in official capacity). Truthfully, if you thought my posts here were to provide any more value than point to how dumb people are for their expectations of you, then perhaps you're far less intelligent than I had imagined; and I don't imagine much from you so... See ya next time. Maybe you'll get something right, maybe not make up complete bullshit. Actually: I feel the need to bring up one more point: ""you just ascribe positions" As you ascribe me to be anti Free Speech. I infer, sometimes incorrectly, your position." See, when I bring something up like you being against free speech, it is actually based on something - your past commentary and many, many threads worth of evidence. When you attempt to infer positions from me, it's based on the fact that I'm arguing with you. You don't base it on beliefs that I've articulated in the past nor the arguments I am making at the time; instead, you see that I (or anyone, really) have disagreed with you and then extrapolate that disagreement to somehow encompass the entire spectrum of the argument. Disagree that whatsapp is official university communication? Well holy shit, I must be completely against freedom of association for pointing that out. Or, in some instances, I somehow become a jewish nazi in your eye. You really need to stop doing that. Your intuition is broken beyond repair.
Sam Adams Member	Mon May 07 04:31:26 "I love how Seb quietly and clearly explains his pov and Sammy resorts to grade school playground tactics. " No matter how "quietly and clearly" seb conveys his love of tyranny and hatred of freedom, it is a completely retarded position that i will dismiss as retarded and accordingly make fun of in the simplest and quickest manner. If you dont want to be treated so, be less retarded.
Seb Member	Mon May 07 05:07:44 Hood: Waste of time writing. Told you, one strike policy is in effect.
hood Member	Mon May 07 07:28:40 Maybe from your perspective. I enjoy pointing out how pathetically plebian you are, despite your "top UK University" background.
Seb Member	Mon May 07 07:58:18 Hood, given you evidently either don't know what bad faith means, or what lying means, or both - I really wouldn't imagine yourself to be in a position where you are able to make judgement that hold any weight. Given the definition of plebian, and the cintext you are using it, I'm not sure you know what that means either. It being perfectly possible to be both plebian and intelligent or the alternative. Increasingly communication with you is tiresome. You focus relentlessly on attempting to prove bad faith and slinging insults, and contriving bizarre interpretations you claim to be logical inferences - followed by performative rage from the grievous insults of any inference regarding your position. It's a tiresome distraction. You come across as a process monkey. And as I explained to delude, I'm not interested in discussing anything with someone who is going to start from the assumption of bad faith. Too tedious.
hood Member	Mon May 07 08:45:13 "Hood, given you evidently either don't know what bad faith means, or what lying means, or both - I really wouldn't imagine yourself to be in a position where you are able to make judgement that hold any weight." Well goal 1 accomplished. Seb is indeed not finished. Mr doesn't know words thinks he knows words, which is cute. Yes, pulling shit out of thin air is lying, even if you didn't explicitly know that it was false. It is still a purposeful misrepresentation of fact. It is a different lie than saying something you know is false, which is what you seem to be fixated on. "Given the definition of plebian, and the cintext you are using it, I'm not sure you know what that means either. It being perfectly possible to be both plebian and intelligent or the alternative." It is also possible to use words in different contexts. If one is speaking of social groups and roles, plebeian (apparently I was spelling it wrong - that I didn't know!) will undoubtedly mean what you think: a commoner, much like the use from Roman times. However, one can use plebeian to speak more specifically. In this case, it should have been pretty obvious that I am calling you unintelligent - or, of common intelligence. This just harkens back to my point of you not understanding words. Or I guess to be appropriate, you only understand one mode to words; you approach language extremely linearly. Language is not linear. It's quite abusing to have someone suggest I don't know what words mean when they cannot even infer the metaphor of calling someone pleb to insult their intelligence. It is, however, quite fitting.
Sam Adams Member	Mon May 07 09:19:08 "top UK University" background." Well given what we know about the uk, their best are still pretty dumb.
Seb Member	Mon May 07 09:20:27 Hood: You are blathering now. Ask yourself what your goal is here. Are you trying to communicate a point on the topic in hand? Evidently not as you are convinced I'm not sincerely trying to do so. Are you trying to convince me of the merit of your position? If so you've failed when you started addressing your arguments to my character rather than the subject matter. It's all coming across as so much personally charged bullshit. Use of the term plebian to mean ill informed or uneducated is one context. Your arguments though tend to suggest I'm not so much ill informed but drawing illogical conclusions and/or outright dishonest. Which is a different thing entirely. The recent conflation of plebian/ignorance with stupidity and error is, well, rather plebian in itself. It points to a category error in the mind of the author. The ignorance or lack of education can be remodied. Stupidity or lack of intelligence can't.
hood Member	Mon May 07 09:41:20 Holy fucking shit... " You are blathering now. Ask yourself what your goal is here. Are you trying to communicate a point on the topic in hand? Evidently not as you are convinced I'm not sincerely trying to do so. Are you trying to convince me of the merit of your position? If so you've failed when you started addressing your arguments to my character rather than the subject matter. It's all coming across as so much personally charged bullshit." Did this line not mean anything to you? "Well goal 1 accomplished. Seb is indeed not finished." Did this entire paragraph just not register? "And yet you put a page down in response. Not just mudslinging, but actual arguments towards the topic. An unprovoked page, I might add. The only arguments I've made in this thread is: that you are not a supporter of free speech, whatsapp is not what you think it is (used in official capacity). Truthfully, if you thought my posts here were to provide any more value than point to how dumb people are for their expectations of you, then perhaps you're far less intelligent than I had imagined; and I don't imagine much from you so..." No, I'm not trying to make a point on the UK, this University, or racist WhatsApp conversations. My contribution to this thread can be summed up as "Seb is a retard." That is all I have ever endeavored to convey in this thread. We are 50+ posts deep and you still don't get this simple concept. You do not understand words. You are a tard. "Use of the term plebian to mean ill informed or uneducated is one context." Please, everyone, see this quote for what it is. This is the direct quote I used to explain my metaphor: "In this case, it should have been pretty obvious that I am calling you unintelligent - or, of common intelligence." Note how seb was unable to internalize that I was calling him unintelligent and for whatever reason changed my fairly straightforward use of unintelligent into ill informed or uneducated. Seb doesn't fucking understand words. He literally is unable to understand words and replaces them with ones that suits his preconceived view of reality. Seb is fucking retarded. "The recent conflation of plebian/ignorance with stupidity and error is, well, rather plebian in itself." Yes, it is indeed quite common for people to lack the comprehension of words or the non-standard use of those words. The irony here is that you think I'm the one unable to comprehend English. Bro, take a look in the fucking mirror. You cannot comprehend what other people tell you. You literally change words in your head to better suit your own perceptions of yourself. When people accuse you if being dishonest, it isn't because they're stupid or because it's a cardinal sin to make inferences. It is because you do this: Original quote: "In this case, it should have been pretty obvious that I am calling you unintelligent - or, of common intelligence." Your reply: "Use of the term plebian to mean ill informed or uneducated is one context." Mic drop, bitches.
Seb Member	Mon May 07 14:55:15 Hood: No the line didn't mean anything to me. Finished what? No idea. And I didn't give it much thought. "Did this entire paragraph just not register? " No. I didnt read it. As I explained, not really interested in continuing because you are being an arse. 're plebian, you are missing my point. I understand you are using it to mean unintelligent. I'm saying that's poor usage. Plebian has been used to mean ignorant and uneducated which works because the root of the word pertains to class which is linked to education. The commonors being often poorly educated compared to the elite. Conflating ignorance and intelligence is a category error and I think people doing that betray firstly their plebian status in failing to appreciate the meaning of the word.
hood Member	Mon May 07 15:31:20 So we have established that Seb didn't bother to read and doesn't understand basic troll theory. I think I'll stand on my mic drop instead of bothering to further shit in seb's mouth. At some point kicking a cripple just gets boring. And in case seb doesn't get it: "kicking a cripple" is again a metaphor, suggesting your mind is the equivalent of a crippled person compared to a normally healthy body.
Seb Member	Mon May 07 15:45:50 Hood: I told you I stopped reading your posts earlier in the thread. Why do you think this is surprising? It now appears you are claiming to be a troll...
hood Member	Mon May 07 16:11:14 One would think that if you questioned someone's motivation, you'd have at least a semblance of an idea of what they were saying. Otherwise it seems kind of fucking silly. Which, you are. Silly and retarded.
Seb Member	Mon May 07 16:15:47 Hood: I questioned your motivation for continuing after I told you I wasn't bothering with your content. I don't really need to read whatever you wrote to do that do I?
hood Member	Mon May 07 16:40:19 Clearly you need to. See my previous comment about your intuition being completely fucking borked.
Seb Member	Mon May 07 17:17:12 Hood: Nah.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: