Adnan Sami on Kangana Controversy - Page 2

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

It needs to be unless and until actual violence is involved (ex: incitement or false information leading to injury). Or someone will get to decide the limits, and we will be back to having no freedom of speech in no time.

If I want to call a certain politician a dimwit, is that allowed?

What if I want to call him a bigot?

What about saying he is destroying the fabric of the country by setting federal agencies on political opposition?

Who gets to decide what is not included in FOE?

I am all for FOE in fact a big backer of it being one of the most important civil rights or rights a human has. The problem in India and with people like kangana IS that they feel the need to say what ever they want, including preaching hate, BUT they advocate taking that very right from others in fact in her little rant that is exactly what she is advocating violence against people because they think or act differently than her.

Right now there are people sitting in jail in that country because they said something that offended someone...

So FOE is great ONLY if it is equal for all, since it is NOT thanks to people like kangana. I will use my FOE ...call her a dirty pig and hope they come after her with a giant cane, beat the crap out of her and throw her in jail for the maximum the law allows when you brake this one law.

Originally posted by: Mahisa_22

There's a very simple definition: Hate speech is directed at a community, e.g. Black or Jewish people. Or LGBTQIA. Anything which encourages discrimination and denial of human rights is and should be illegal in all civilized countries. Because community-based hate speech *always* leads to violence, directly or indirectly.

Nobody spewing hate against any community should enjoy freedom of speech. There you go.

Who defines hate? You?

If I say trans women with their male plumbing intact should not be allowed in women's jails or shelters, is that hate?

Or if someone says, men are the problem, is that hate?

Or if someone says cis, straight, white men are the problem, is that hate speech?

Because under your own definition, it's hate speech.

And most of the wokeratti should be sitting in jail for what they've said.

But they shouldn't be. Because FOE includes freedom to say despicable things (and some plain facts which are now out of favor with the woke crowd). Or it's not freedom at all.

Or is it that you (generic you) get to decide which group can be vocally hated and which group not? That, my friend, was already tried. In Nazi Germany. Also, in Revolutionary France and in Socialist Russia. There are other, less-known examples. None of those experiments ended well for the disfavored groups, the disadvantaged groups, or the nation as a whole.

Where the limits to FOE are where it causes physical damage or calls for physical damage. That's it.

Originally posted by: CriticusExpert

I am all for FOE in fact a big backer of it being one of the most important civil rights or rights a human has. The problem in India and with people like kangana IS that they feel the need to say what ever they want, including preaching hate, BUT they advocate taking that very right from others in fact in her little rant that is exactly what she is advocating violence against people because they think or act differently than her.

Right now there are people sitting in jail in that country because they said something that offended someone...

So FOE is great ONLY if it is equal for all, since it is NOT thanks to people like kangana. I will use my FOE ...call her a dirty pig and hope they come after her with a giant cane, beat the crap out of her and throw her in jail for the maximum the law allows when you brake this one law.

Advocating violence is inciting physical damage. That's a crime.

Otherwise, she should be able to be as hateful as she wants. Nor should she be able to curtail anyone's right to call her a stinky, gutter-dwelling creature with tar for brains and slime for morals.

Originally posted by: Lalakhun1

Did kangana received her first movie through bheek or did she had to sell something else 🤔 Nation wants to know

I heard the evidence 🤣

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Who defines hate? You?

If I say trans women with their male plumbing should not be allowed in women jails, is that hate?

Or if someone says, men are the problem, is that hate?

Or if someone says cis, straight, white men are the problem, is that hate speech?

Because under your own definition, it's hate speech.

And most of the wokeratti should be sitting in jail for what they've said.

But they shouldn't be. Because FOE includes freedom to say despicable things. Or it's not freedom at all.

Or is it that you (generic you) get to decide which group can be vocally hated and which group not? That, my friend, was already tried. In Nazi Germany. Also, in Revolutionary France and in Socialist Russia. There are other, less-known examples. None of those experiments ended well for the disfavored groups, the disadvantaged groups, or the nation as a whole.

Where the limits to FOE are where it causes physical damage or calls for physical damage. That's it.

Completely agree with this! JK Rowling has basically been cancelled because she pointed that people who menstruate are known as women because trans people take offence to that. To the point that she wasn't invited to the 20th Anniversary Special for the world she created.

It also reminds me of an article written by George Orwell in 1944 on Fascism: "Nationalism is universally regarded as inherently Fascist, but this is held only to apply to such national movements as the speaker happens to disapprove of. Arab nationalism, Polish nationalism, Finnish nationalism, the Indian Congress Party, the Muslim League, Zionism, and the I.R.A. are all described as Fascist but not by the same people."

www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

Of course there are things that people say that upset me and emotionally I wished they could be censored. But as I have gotten older I think globally we have gone too far in the other direction to the point where rational discussion is being limited which is contrast to tenants of liberalism not in line with it.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Who defines hate? You?

If I say trans women with their male plumbing intact should not be allowed in women's jails or shelters, is that hate?

Or if someone says, men are the problem, is that hate?

Or if someone says cis, straight, white men are the problem, is that hate speech?

Because under your own definition, it's hate speech.

And most of the wokeratti should be sitting in jail for what they've said.

But they shouldn't be. Because FOE includes freedom to say despicable things (and some plain facts which are now out of favor with the woke crowd). Or it's not freedom at all.

Or is it that you (generic you) get to decide which group can be vocally hated and which group not? That, my friend, was already tried. In Nazi Germany. Also, in Revolutionary France and in Socialist Russia. There are other, less-known examples. None of those experiments ended well for the disfavored groups, the disadvantaged groups, or the nation as a whole.

Where the limits to FOE are where it causes physical damage or calls for physical damage. That's it.

I already defined it for you. Encouraging discrimination against a group constitutes hate speech. And since cis, white men aren't discriminated against anywhere in society, your argument is null and void from the start. It's common sense that certain marginalized groups are more vulnerable to hate speech than others. That' a downright no-brainer which doesn't need to be stated explicitly.

And yes, saying transwomen who haven't transitioned shouldn't be allowed in female washrooms IS hate speech, in case you weren't aware.

Originally posted by: malikakas

Completely agree with this! JK Rowling has basically been cancelled because she pointed that people who menstruate are known as women because trans people take offence to that. To the point that she wasn't invited to the 20th Anniversary Special for the world she created.

It also reminds me of an article written by George Orwell in 1944 on Fascism: "Nationalism is universally regarded as inherently Fascist, but this is held only to apply to such national movements as the speaker happens to disapprove of. Arab nationalism, Polish nationalism, Finnish nationalism, the Indian Congress Party, the Muslim League, Zionism, and the I.R.A. are all described as Fascist but not by the same people."

www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

Of course there are things that people say that upset me and emotionally I wished they could be censored. But as I have gotten older I think globally we have gone too far in the other direction to the point where rational discussion is being limited which is contrast to tenants of liberalism not in line with it.

JK Rowling wasn't cancelled just for that one comment. She is violently transphobic, and has shown off her vileness on numerous occasions. She has actively supported a woman who was fired for hate speech against transgender people in public. She's a TERF.

Originally posted by: Mahisa_22

I already defined it for you. Encouraging discrimination against a group constitutes hate speech. And since cis, white men aren't discriminated against anywhere in society, your argument is null and void from the start. It's common sense that certain marginalized groups are more vulnerable to hate speech than others. That' a downright no-brainer which doesn't need to be stated explicitly.

And yes, saying transwomen who haven't transitioned shouldn't be allowed in female washrooms IS hate speech, in case you weren't aware.

Who decides what is discrimination? You claim it's a no-brainer, but what you're saying seems more like historical ignorance.

Let's say, I, as a woman, do not want trans women with male equipment in female shelters, acc to you, it is discrimination.

Might I remind you, these trans women, under their male identity, would've been able to own property, vote, work a job they wanted, play sports, join the military, become priests, even beat their wives if they so felt inclined, only a 100-some years ago while biological women wouldn't.

So why would women - a group MORE discriminated against since the beginning of humanity - be asked to give up their safety and security?

A sexually assaulted woman who takes shelter in GOVERNMENT-RUN safe place has to face the same situation she ran from according to you. All to favor a group that is in with the woke crowd now.

If I speak against it, acc to you, it comes under hate speech. Fortunately for me, it's not the case in the United States. You could look it up. I can shout it from the rooftop, and the government can't do a single thing to me. And I do not want the country to go to a situation where I can't object to it.

Then comes your statement hate speech is OK as long as it is against a group which has not yet been discriminated against/considered privileged. That worked out well in all those dictatorships - the French revolution, Nazi Germany, Socialist/Communist Russia. Even Venezuela if you want some example more recent.

Because at what point does society decide okay, NOW this hate speech is also discrimination? Or does it never decide that? Do power-intoxicated little twits continue the same indefinitely? Once sanity prevails among regular folk (because it eventually does) and such people stop contributing to society (as happened in all those tyrannies), the societies fall.

All I can say to people who think like this is those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. By the time you wake up, and not simply be woke, it will be too late. Hope to God I'm far from this lunacy by then.

Here's a nice little quote for ya before I sign off (because we're clearly going in circles):

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock

Originally posted by: Mahisa_22

JK Rowling wasn't cancelled just for that one comment. She is violently transphobic, and has shown off her vileness on numerous occasions. She has actively supported a woman who was fired for hate speech against transgender people in public. She's a TERF.

One instance of her violence please?

Mind quoting said hate speech here?

Also, the wokeratti lost that war😆.