General News Thread

[Jon the Hat]

3 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

https://people.com/elon-musk-shares-startling-post-endorsing-white-solidarity-11881885

It doesn't occur to them to wonder why they are hated and maybe do something about that instead.

[Mike Oxlong]

5 hours ago, Zear0 said:

“Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

 

“I don’t need international law,”

 

Never guess who said that... 

Tom Hopper ? 

[bmt]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

No one deserves to be shot in the head, but I can tell you if US law enforcement are pointing guns at you FFS stop driving.  You know they are looking for an excuse.

Doesn't look like his gun is out at the time from the video. She only drives off because the other officer starts pulling on the door handle. Probably not the right decision but people do weird things when scared/under pressure!

[Voll Blau]

6 hours ago, Tommy G said:

I didn’t mention anything about burning refugees, did I? 

Which "nasty tweet" are you referring to then?

[Tommy G]

1 hour ago, Voll Blau said:

Which "nasty tweet" are you referring to then?

Just in general, people have done decent stretches for tweets in recent history.
 

My point is compare that to a bloke downloading child porn effectively gets off free proving he behaves from now on - how is that justified? 
 

Glad you’ve worried yourself about who’s tweet rather than the above, half a dozen people understood that but wooosh it’s gone over your head. 
 

 

[Voll Blau]

15 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Just in general, people have done decent stretches for tweets in recent history.
 

My point is compare that to a bloke downloading child porn effectively gets off free proving he behaves from now on - how is that justified? 
 

Glad you’ve worried yourself about who’s tweet rather than the above, half a dozen people understood that but wooosh it’s gone over your head. 
 

 

But who's done three years for just a "nasty tweet", as you claim, rather than something that was actually more than that?

 

I'm all for nonces getting what they deserve but this anodyne idea that "paedo gets off but you get jailed just for nasty tweets" is debasing our justice system to the level of poorly constructed Facebook memes. Ultimately, it's the kind of unfounded claim that's dangerous to our democracy because people assume the likes of what you've claimed to be true, despite not bothering to look up the facts of cases for themselves.

 

Would welcome any examples you can find of someone being jailed for three years for a "nasty tweet".

[when_you're_smiling]

4 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

No one deserves to be shot in the head, but I can tell you if US law enforcement are pointing guns at you FFS stop driving.  You know they are looking for an excuse.

And that’s how a tyranny/dictatorships work. You have to toe the line out of fear. You could be a saint but those behind the tyranny will attempt to make you look bad in the public conscious.

 

Also, ICE are ‘law enforcement’ in that that there is only one law they can enforce. They are not even meant to have the power to detain someone they don’t believe is an illegal immigrant. If you’ve not broken into the country as 96 per cent of the country haven’t, why should you fear them?

[Clogger_]

4 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

But who's done three years for just a "nasty tweet", as you claim, rather than something that was actually more than that?

 

I'm all for nonces getting what they deserve but this anodyne idea that "paedo gets off but you get jailed just for nasty tweets" is debasing our justice system to the level of poorly constructed Facebook memes. Ultimately, it's the kind of unfounded claim that's dangerous to our democracy because people assume the likes of what you've claimed to be true, despite not bothering to look up the facts of cases for themselves.

 

Would welcome any examples you can find of someone being jailed for three years for a "nasty tweet".

 

Also wondering if Tommy continues to use X in light of Grok's ability to generate repulsive images of women *and children* on demand? Personally I find it hard to put into words how problematic this is, and it's one of many reasons why I'd never go near that sewer. Wondering where Tommy draws his own line?

 

If 'hurty words' really were routinely prosecuted, we'd need an order of magnitude more prison space to deal with all of the gutter racists spewing filth on X.

 

Anyway, he knows his argument is mendacious.

[leicsmac]

Vance is such a misogynist reptile.

 

Thankfully he doesn't appear to have the same charisma (?) as his Dear Leader, which bodes somewhat well for 2028 seeing as he'll likely be the nominee.

[Jon the Hat]

7 minutes ago, when_you're_smiling said:

And that’s how a tyranny/dictatorships work. You have to toe the line out of fear. You could be a saint but those behind the tyranny will attempt to make you look bad in the public conscious.

 

Also, ICE are ‘law enforcement’ in that that there is only one law they can enforce. They are not even meant to have the power to detain someone they don’t believe is an illegal immigrant. If you’ve not broken into the country as 96 per cent of the country haven’t, why should you fear them?

It is how the US has worked for generations if you are a person of colour.

[Tommy G]

5 minutes ago, Clogger_ said:

 

Also wondering if Tommy continues to use X in light of Grok's ability to generate repulsive images of women *and children* on demand? Personally I find it hard to put into words how problematic this is, and it's one of many reasons why I'd never go near that sewer. Wondering where Tommy draws his own line?

 

If 'hurty words' really were routinely prosecuted, we'd need an order of magnitude more prison space to deal with all of the gutter racists spewing filth on X.

 

Anyway, he knows his argument is mendacious.

Thanks for the third person references - fwiw I use X for sport and news - and the odd funny meme, I’ve had to google about grok and haven’t a clue what you were talking about - you seem a bit more clued up than me 

[ClaphamFox]

1 hour ago, Voll Blau said:

But who's done three years for just a "nasty tweet", as you claim, rather than something that was actually more than that?

 

I'm all for nonces getting what they deserve but this anodyne idea that "paedo gets off but you get jailed just for nasty tweets" is debasing our justice system to the level of poorly constructed Facebook memes. Ultimately, it's the kind of unfounded claim that's dangerous to our democracy because people assume the likes of what you've claimed to be true, despite not bothering to look up the facts of cases for themselves.

 

Would welcome any examples you can find of someone being jailed for three years for a "nasty tweet".

The main thing that has debased our justice system in recent years is the police’s ludicrous pursuit of people for things they’ve written online. Until recently, police were making 12,000 arrests a year—more than 30 a day—for social media posts. That was utterly insane and quite rightly attracted mockery from other countries, but thankfully the police themselves have become sick of it and have told the government they no longer intend to pursue non-crime hate incidents, the legislation under which most of these arrests were made.

 

Lucy Connolly was prosecuted for inciting racial hatred, which is obviously different to an NCHI. However, the government has commissioned a review of public order and hate crime legislation to assess whether legal thresholds and safeguards remain appropriate, so it seems possible that prosecutions of her kind will also become far less likely in future. 

Edited 9 January by ClaphamFox

[Voll Blau]

4 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

The main thing that has debased our justice system in recent years is the police’s ludicrous pursuit of people for things they’ve written online. Until recently, police were making 12,000 arrests a year—more than 30 a day—for social media posts. That was utterly insane and quite rightly attracted mockery from other countries, but thankfully the police themselves have become sick of it and have told the government they no longer intend to pursue non-crime hate incidents, the legislation under which most of these arrests were made.

 

Lucy Connolly was prosecuted for inciting racial hatred, which is obviously different to an NCHI. However, the government has commissioned a review of public order and hate crime legislation to assess whether legal thresholds and safeguards remain appropriate, so it seems possible that prosecutions of her kind will become far less likely in future. 

Things people online do have an impact though. We live in a world where people will believe any old nonsense they read on social media - and then act upon it.

 

Publishing to a six-figure audience that refugees should be burned in their hotels is a dangerous act. A newspaper editor would rightly be jailed for it.

Edited 9 January by Voll Blau

[Clogger_]

18 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Thanks for the third person references - fwiw I use X for sport and news - and the odd funny meme, I’ve had to google about grok and haven’t a clue what you were talking about - you seem a bit more clued up than me 

Maybe, but FWIW your last line and emoji is pretty low

Edited 9 January by Clogger_

[ClaphamFox]

23 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Things people online do have an impact though. We live in a world where people will believe any old nonsense they read on social media - and then act upon it.

 

Publishing to a six-figure audience that refugees should be burned in their hotels is a dangerous act. A newspaper editor would rightly be jailed for it.

Under the NCHI laws, people were being visited by the police for making jokes, being slightly rude to others in online disputes and expressing mainstream views. The only criteria for the police to get involved was for somebody to report they were 'offended' by something somebody else had said or written. Inevitably, this was exploited by campaigners seeking to harass those they disagreed with. It became an ungovernable mess that took up loads of police time and resulted in ordinary people being arrested when they done nothing wrong. Thankfully that insane period seems to be over.

 

What Lucy Connolly wrote was appalling and completely inexcusable. But it should not be the business of the state to police and punish people's emotions. Incitement to violence is rightly illegal, but 'inciting hatred', which Connolly was convicted for, is much more nebulous and hard to pin down. It basically invites the authorities to intervene in the realm of thought and emotion, and personally I wouldn't trust any politician, police officer or judge to hold that kind of power.

[Tommy G]

35 minutes ago, Clogger_ said:

Maybe, but FWIW your last line and emoji is pretty low

So you criticise someone without quoting them then can’t take a bit of stick back? Welcome to Foxestalk 

[danny.]

9 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

Urging people to burn refugees alive is more than a "nasty tweet", isn't it?

Connolly wasn’t urging anything. Dishonest revisionism. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, danny. said:

Connolly wasn’t urging anything. Dishonest revisionism. 

If she wasn't doing that, then what was her intent with that communication?

[danny.]

Just now, leicsmac said:

If she wasn't doing that, then what was her intent with that communication?

You’re an intelligent person, you know full well saying “I couldn’t care if” is not equivalent to urging or inciting. She also took down the tweet within hours and was not in a good headspace at the time. I’m not excusing the content, it’s not something I would write, but a 3 year sentence for that when we have people being complete let off for raping children and women because they didn’t know better is the disparity in the justice system @Tommy G was highlighting. 

[Clogger_]

4 minutes ago, danny. said:

You’re an intelligent person, you know full well saying “I couldn’t care if” is not equivalent to urging or inciting. She also took down the tweet within hours and was not in a good headspace at the time. I’m not excusing the content, it’s not something I would write, but a 3 year sentence for that when we have people being complete let off for raping children and women because they didn’t know better is the disparity in the justice system @Tommy G was highlighting. 

She pled guilty

[Tommy G]

Just now, Clogger_ said:

She pled guilty

*advised to 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, danny. said:

You’re an intelligent person, you know full well saying “I couldn’t care if” is not equivalent to urging or inciting. She also took down the tweet within hours and was not in a good headspace at the time. I’m not excusing the content, it’s not something I would write, but a 3 year sentence for that when we have people being complete let off for raping children and women because they didn’t know better is the disparity in the justice system @Tommy G was highlighting. 

Thank you, all I wanted to know was a possible alternative explanation for why she stated what she stated. 

 

Personally, I think that whole issue is a minefield and as a result I try to not really back a horse in that particular race. 

[ALC Fox]

10 hours ago, Zear0 said:

“Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

 

“I don’t need international law,”

 

Never guess who said that... 

This could be such an important thing. He's pushing the envelope again. Crossing another line. In the same interview he conceded that he does need to abide by international law. But he's sewn the seed that may enable him not to. He's already done it with invading Venezuela and kidnapping Maduro. But if nobody bats an eyelid when he says something and immediately backtracks on it, he'll keep pushing it and he will begin to do that thing with regularity.

 

Ditto regarding the cancellation of the midterm elections in November 2026. He's 'joked' about cancelling them. Don't be surprised if he tries it. Don't be surprised if protests on the streets give him the excuse to justify his authoritarianism, painting 'the radical left' and 'foreign invaders' as those responsible.

[Clogger_]

16 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

So you criticise someone without quoting them then can’t take a bit of stick back? Welcome to Foxestalk 

Just so I'm clear, what *exactly* was the "stick" you were giving me? I'm slow on the uptake, so you can help by making it clear and simple

[Sampson]

It’s fair that governments don’t really know how to deal with social media. Like I’m a liberal who believes we absolutely should live in a free speech society and people make blue jokes to their friends in private all the time, there’s nothing wrong with that, I’m not an evolutionary biologist but I bet there’s some social bonding reasons behind it.
 

Thing is as much as it’s easy to say “just don’t post it publicly” or “yes but you should be aware of the consequences” it isn’t that easy, it’s very easy just to like something or post something while your brain is on autopilot and you’re not thinking it through, because you never (rightly) had to face these consequences jokingly with mates in the past and for most people this technology has come up in living memory when those brain chemistry patterns and cultural patterns have been formed.

 

The bigger problem though is that social media is probably the most addictive drug ever created by humans and was literally the smartest technology* humans have created to force people’s attention to it and not take their eyeballs off it to the point where people feel physically compulsed to check their phone every 5 minutes and post or google everything they think. So I don’t think it’s easy at all to tell someone just to not post, I think for some it’s harder than stopping quitting smoking. That’s how the technology is designed.

Also, there’s loads of psychology experiments showing because we feel like we’re anonymous online people say things they’ll never do in real life, even though we aren’t really anonymous and that inevitably leads to misreadings or misunderstandings of people’s genuine personalities - the classic is there’s so many people we’d argue with online that we’d be great friends with if we met them in real life.
 

I do though totally understand the argument that people listen to what is written on social media so writing things on inciting violence needs to be clamped down too.

 

But it is a bit scary now that Big Brother doesn’t need to watch you because people’s autopilot thoughts are kind of out there already on social media posts and their google searches (and now ChatGPT questions).

 

I don’t know what the answer is, no one knows where the balance is. The scary thing for me is just that a major cause of the 30 Years War was the Catholic Church not being able to deal with the new mass communication system of the printing press. And a major cause of Workd War II was governments not being able to deal with the new mass communication system of the radio. I think social media has undoubtedly played a sizeable role in destabilising our world order the past decade or so, where it ends or how we deal with it I hope we don’t have to have a massive war like the previous 2 mentioned to help us decide. 

 

* I say was because obviously now we have AI which is magnitudes many more times as powerful.