:
|
How is a threat the expression of an opinion? It's usually pretty clear when there's a legitimate threat or not. Internet threats? 99.9% of the time, not legitimate.
|
So, let me get this straight: you start by claiming you don’t believe in hate speech: “There is, will never be and should never be any clear line that defines hate speech. There is only speech.”
But then you state your belief that “legitimately inconveniencing the general public” with something like shouting fire in a crowded theater doesn’t count as freedom of speech.
Then when I query you on whether you consider threats in the same way, you … agree? Bearing in mind that threats are a form of hate speech.
So you start by decrying the idea of hate speech and saying everything should be covered under free speech, then go on to say you think a form of hate speech isn’t covered by freedom of speech.
???
(I’m not even going to bother explaining why your concept of “legitimate threats” is absurd)
:
|
Jesus fucking christ, dude, take your blinders off for one second. It is blatantly evident from the articles I posted that they have an incessant need to be seen as politically correct and totally accepting to other cultures, even toxic ones.
Don't fucking tell me that a woman lying to the police about the race of her attackers is anything else. She went back 12 hours later, I know.
So fucking what? She wasted police time and put thousands of people at risk because *squee racism*. Fuck that.
|
Literally thousands of people were endangered because the police had a false description of rapists for 12 hours. It’s certainly not like you’re exaggerating this at all.
Your point is pretty far from being “blatantly evident” from the articles you’ve posted – you’ve previously made the claim that Germany are being censored and arrested for not being tolerant enough of migrants, and the closest you got to that point was a woman who initially wanted to avoid adding fuel to the fire by reporting her attackers as foreign (but was convinced to make an accurate report less than a day later), and an article where a couple were fined for running a Facebook group describing migrants as “flooding our country […] [bringing] terror, fear, sorrow […] [raping] our women and [putting] our children at risk”.
Everything else you’ve linked has either discredited your original argument (people are reporting migrants for committing crimes; migrants are being arrested, charged and found guilty for crimes; migrants are being linked to sex attacks), can be contradicted or questioned (Sumte is coping well with its influx of refugees despite initial alarmist press coverage; an article accusing a documentary of blaming white people has no other corroborating source), or simply is irrelevant to the discussion (Germany changes law to have a broader definition of sexual assault).
None of that proves your claim that Germany is implementing censorship or arresting people for speaking out against something.
:
|
I'm not even going to respond to most of what you said because you completely misunderstood it. I'm well aware that all of that is illegal in Germany, how do you not see that that's the fucking problem?
|
So, you’ve lost me here. Are you saying the problem is that Germany has made sexual assault illegal? That hate speech is illegal?
:
|
Character assassination is not a valid argument. Why does it matter which news sources you like? Huffington Post fucking sucks but they still have credible news stories. Go ahead, find a completely unbiased news network, good fucking luck with that.
|
You’ve ignored my assertion that the article was deliberately vague in how it described the article, despite the bold upfront claim that it portrays the attackers as white men.
My reason for highlighting the bias of your source was to point out to you how it’s very easy to question the reporting of a site with a well-documented bias. It’s not a question of which news sources I “like”, but which news sources have the potential to twist the facts to further their own agenda. This was also why I pointed out I couldn’t find another corroborating original source for the article‘s claim – googling the subject only turns up more (surprise) right-wing news sites and blogs crediting the original Breitbart article as the source.
:
|
So fucking what? Let them hate, you thought policing cunt! They have a right to hate, everybody does, fuck you! Do I agree with what they say? Do I fuck! But I'll defend to the death their right to say it.
|
First off, I haven’t lobbed any personal insults at you up until now in this thread, so please grow up.
Second,
hating is not the same thing as
hate speech. Everyone has a right to hate; that does not give anyone a right to direct hateful abuse towards others.
:
|
There is a difference between saying and doing you fucking tard.
|
And there is a link between people saying things and doing things, especially in regard to hate crimes. Amazingly enough, if hate speech against a particular group becomes normalized, hate crimes against that group are more likely to occur and become commonplace. See also: ‘othering’.
:
|
My posting of them articles was to emphasize the shithole of a country that Germany is becoming - again - it was completely separate from my point about hate speech. Congratulations on cramming your "Nep is a xenophobe!" narrative into this discussion about free speech!
|
Yeah except as I’ve pointed out Germany really isn’t becoming a shithole. You’ve been unable to back up your arguments to that effect, and the evidence I’ve posted suggests that Germany is coping well with its influx of refugees and migrants.
Oh, and I didn’t bring the xenophobia narrative into the fight, you managed that one on your own by immediately launching into a tirade of anti-immigrant rhetoric when given the opportunity.
:
|
Did you... did you even read that article? They're not forced at all, they're encouraged because officials said it may bring them a better quality of life. Whatever, it's dumb but they still had a choice.
Do you know what they said, though?
|
Here’s the problem: immigrants are
already given the option of a German name when they immigrate – they are allowed to take on a Germanized version of their original name. It’s only the option of a brand new ‘Christian’ name that isn’t yet available.
Do you know what
they also said?
:
83% of respondents agreed that “I get angry when Muslims are the first to be blamed whenever there is a terrorist attack.”
61% of respondents agreed that “Islam fits perfectly in the Western world.”
51% of respondents agreed that “as an ethnic Turk, I feel like a second class citizen.”
54% of respondents agreed that “regardless of how hard I try, I am not accepted as a member of German society.”
|
There’s a clear frustration from Turkish migrants about their treatment by German natives. The rift between the two groups
is explored more in this Spiegel article, which points to a more nuanced root than simply “islamic immigrants = evil”.
:
|
I'm fairly certain we can swap out a few words there.
fix'd
|
“Most Muslims in Germany” is an unfair descriptor – the article only quotes statistics relating to
Turkish Muslims, who make up 63% of the German Muslim population. 32% of 63% of the population cannot accurately be described as “most Muslims in Germany”.
Fos Vs Govt Control
