gweur wrote

I think that depends on who is wielding the censure against the left.

If its someone more towards centre or to the right, then they probably wont like it. But in lots of places in Europe the agencies of state are being used to enforce right think and speak, if that’s turned on them theres probably not a lot they can do.

The other way it can be used is by someone who is even further left than themselves, there is a real trend towards 1-upism in the movement, being more inclusive than thou. You can already see cases of fragmentation in some groups on the far left, you can really see its impact in parts of the feminism movement in regard to the transgender movement.

So who knows how they will react.


gweur wrote

Henious crime, its made worse that there is an abuse of power and authority.

Those who wield that power and authority to have to be held to the highest of standards, higher than anyone else. And when they are found to have abused that power, to have misused that authority then there needs to be a very clear and just reaction, the sentence needs to be long and tough.

Also 'Forced into sex' is an odd turn of phrase, the usual nomenclature is rape.


gweur wrote

That is always going to be the problem, its that there isn't a general realization that once you open up Pandora's box, then its beyond your control and can be turned against you.

For me the scary part is that the people who started perpetrating the censure, they didn't do it from malice or hate, they genuinely believed, and probably still do believe, that they are right and just, that what they put forth is good!

The psychology behind it is fascinating, self serving bias,the Galatea effect, social bond theory, the power of names (euphemisms), tunnel vision, reactance theory, blinding effect of power, cognitive dissonance and rationalization, pressure to conform and the list goes on.


gweur wrote

Do you always assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be white? Are you sure you are as free from prejudice and judgement as you believe you are?

If someone discusses a topic in a rational manner they must be defending white supremacy? Do you always slander and straw man people? I suppose if you are incapable of debate, then you must resort to dishonesty.

If you engage in avoidance tactics, how do you every expect to reach any form of commonality? If we cannot make sense of each other, then there is no communication or understanding between us!

Yes there is some racism with the justice system, however does that negate that black males are 6 to 8 times more likely to be the victim or the perpetrator of an interracial homicide than white males, have a look at the black interracial homicides compared to Asian interracial homicides, its fairly stark reading.

Can we agree that what’s predominantly killing young black men is not the police, its young black men. If we don’t acknowledge this, if we wilfully ignore it then how can we expect to drop the interracial homicide rate? How can we hope to stop black men from becoming both the perpetrators and the victims of homicide if we willingly misrepresent the problem.

If a subset of a group commit a specific crime at a rate 6-8 times greater than another subset of the same group, would you expect both subsets to undergo incarceration at the same rate? Of course you wouldn’t, you would expect the first group to be incarcerated at a much higher rate, about 6-8 times more than the second.

I know that this is unpleasant to hear, its unpalatable to think about. Facts really don’t care about anyone’s feelings, to have any hope of changing the circumstances we have to face up to the problem warts and all.

p.s I have already read The New Jim Crow, are you aware of the critisms of this work? I would refer you to the Law Professor James Forman Jr who gives an excellent refutation of the work. Before you pull out the race card it is worth noting that James Foreman is not white, i would encourage you to read his book Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America if you havent done so already, as you clearly have no clue as to the reality of the situation we find ourselves in and why we ended up here.


gweur wrote

You really wont get a considered reply.

What you will received is abuse in by the shovel load and references to links and material that you are never going to read.

In general the entire game here is to categorise people by a group identity, that doesnt mean just you it also means that people categorise themselves.

If you can categorise then all idividual agency is removed, if you are y then you have the attribues x, if you didnt have the x attributes then how could you be y. So by the mere fact of being categorised that is now your identity, beyond dispute.

Thats the beauty of categorisation, as the categoriser has all idividual responsability removed. You are y and they are not y, therefore they have none of the x attributes, they are superior to you in every way. It doesnt matter that there is no quality to their arguemnt, because you are y and y is wrong.


gweur wrote

I notice throughout your entire post you have assumed my ethnicity as white, rather than argue a position it is easier to argue a straw man. It's very easy to categorise, you are in danger of becoming that which you hate.

Its bound up in your language, where you continually categorise me as white. You cannot help yourself, the prejudiced never see themselves as prejudicial, they believe they are good and just.

Your entire premise is to assign all individuals group identities and deny them the agency of individuality. To assign not only a group but also group traits, responsibilities, guilt and duties. You feel white people should feel x, or act y or are ethically bound to feel z....................what if they don’t share your opinion of how they should feel? What if they view themselves as individuals and reject your group assignment?

58.2% of the prision population are white, according to BOP. Which means the majority of the slave labour is white, you beneifit from that slave market too, what are you doing about it? Ask yourself this is a white person less likley to be part of this slave market because they are white or because they are statisically less likely to engage in criminality?

Black lives matter, yes they do, i agree. But as long as we ignore the fact that the single biggest killers of young black men are other young black men then we cant get anywhere. Black people are 6 to 8 times more likley to be the perpetrator or the victim of an interracial homicide (i.e. victim and perpetrator are the same race) than a white person, this goes someway to explaining the higher rate of incarceration among blacks.

Can POC be responsible for their own lack of generational wealth, can they have the agency to change that, or do you beleive they are so incompitent they need to have it gifted to them?

I had a browse of your wiki, its just a hodge podge of unrelated articles. how about you link to sources for your argements rather than someting non-specific, as I have done above.


gweur wrote

This is something I have to say in my breif time here I can agree with.

I would say this place is a giant echo chamber, which makes the vast majority of its discussions irrelevant.

Essentially people here seem to be following idiologies in an unquestioning and unconscious manner.


gweur wrote

One of the larger problems is that a lot of people in this thread believe that they can determine what is and is not censurable.

For example facists should be censored (I disagree), who determines what facist is?. Is it a neo-,nazi? Yes.

Is it a conservative, sometimes yes and sometimes no?

Is it someone right of centre? Well maybe.

Is it soemone who's left of centre but not far left? Could be.

However they are unable to appreciate that censure is a double edged sword, that could be used against them one day.

Is it the act of a coward to censure and deplatform? Arguably it is, why do they feel incapable of winning the discussion?. In some cases that can give an unwanted air of legitimacy to the other side.

I think censure harms the censor more than the censored.


gweur wrote

Should speech be censored, no that's never a good thing.

In order to be able to think you must be free to speak, you must be free to hear things you may not like.

The only limitation should be on speech that's a direct call for voilent actiin, if you say you hope I get run over by a car then that's probably ok. If you say "if someone runs this person over I'll pay them $50", that's a direct call to violence and isn't okay . You can't yell fire in a movie theatre, unless there is an actual fire

Should anyone be censored? If they are making a direct call for action then yes, otherwise no. Who gets to determine who undergoes censure? You? Me? That's a pretty dangerous game were playing at that point.

I want to hear opinions and positions I don't agree with, because I can then choose to debate or ignore those individuals as appropriate.

It's a paradox, the problem is that everyoe chooses which side of the line they thing hey are on


gweur wrote

There's a reason why we don't hold children guilty of the crimes of their parents.

You are only accountable for you and what you do, for those who came before you there is no account to settle.

If those people feel like they want to personally attone, I don't understand that philosophy, bit if it helps them through the night then have at it.


gweur wrote

Reply to Ad Block on Tor? by rot

Guardian project recommends that you don't add any extensions onto the browser, as it makes you a target. You will just have to live with the adds that slip through.