| I don’t understand 16:51 - Sep 5 with 9044 views | chicoazul |
How or why has this happened? Imagine getting sacked after winning the World Cup.
Jorge Vilda: Spanish federation sacks World Cup-winning coach amid Luis Rubiales kiss row https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66721003 |  |
| |  |
| I don’t understand on 13:21 - Sep 6 with 1553 views | BiGDonnie |
| I don’t understand on 17:16 - Sep 5 by Naylorsrightboot |
It was just a kiss after a World Cup finals win…….what a woke world we live in……. |
Your poor sister. |  |
| |
| I don’t understand on 13:22 - Sep 6 with 1552 views | BarcaBlue |
| I don’t understand on 13:06 - Sep 6 by Cafe_Newman |
"Holding a different opinion isn't hateful, toxic, dangerous peddling of mis/disinformation. Holding hateful, toxic, mis/disinformation opinions is hateful, toxic, dangerous peddling of mis/disinformation."
"hateful, toxic, dangerous " - all rather subjective, right?
"And why do you talk of evidence and science as if they're dirty words?"
I didn't. It's your subjective opinion which has lead you to that opinion.
Subjective evidence is not good evidence and shouldn't be used in science.
Furthermore the existence of something demonstrated by evidence does not mean that thing's non-existence when the evidence is destroyed, hidden, no longer accessible or accessible to just a few. When people start to believe it does, we are well on our way to living in the dark ages again. [Post edited 6 Sep 2023 13:09]
|
Well done. In your two posts you've written a lot of words. |  | | |
| I don’t understand on 13:48 - Sep 6 with 1498 views | Cafe_Newman |
| I don’t understand on 13:22 - Sep 6 by BarcaBlue |
Well done. In your two posts you've written a lot of words. |
Just wait until you get your first book, it'll blow your mind! |  | | |
| I don’t understand on 14:01 - Sep 6 with 1487 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| I don’t understand on 11:31 - Sep 6 by chicoazul |
Public actions by the President yes but what “public actions” did the coach make? That’s who I’m talking about. |
He openly applauded the President's self-justification speech.
(Plus everything that happened prior to that behind closed doors that led to a significant number of Spanish female players refusing to play for him.) |  | | |
| I don’t understand on 14:47 - Sep 6 with 1451 views | Ryorry |
| I don’t understand on 11:46 - Sep 6 by Cafe_Newman |
It used to be okay to disagree but not today. In these enlightened times of inclusion, there are permitted narratives and those who exercise their right to speak freely and hold a different opinion are hateful, toxic, dangerous peddlers of mis/disinformation and are silenced, cancelled or deplatformed. Just see what response this post gets. At best it will be ignored, but most likely it will be downvoted for brazen non-compliance to state imposed doublegoodthink, or my identity will be linked to some left-field poster from the past. I might be asked to provide conclusive evidence to support any alternative opinion I may hold without which my views are invalid because... "science". Any evidence which is not immediately available on a "credible" source and fact-checked is invalid. Chairman Mao, Erich Honecker and any of the glorious leaders would be so proud of the Orwellian times under which we live today.
I haven't formed an opinion on the topic in question yet having been disappointed that we didn't win and then just thinking the events in Spain and the global reporting of them are just too weird to get my head round despite various posters in this thread pointing out that it's quite simple to understand really. |
What a heap of disingenuous, self-justifying nonsense.
If you’re not already a politician, you missed your vocation. |  |
| |
| I don’t understand on 16:15 - Sep 6 with 1380 views | Herbivore |
| I don’t understand on 11:46 - Sep 6 by Cafe_Newman |
It used to be okay to disagree but not today. In these enlightened times of inclusion, there are permitted narratives and those who exercise their right to speak freely and hold a different opinion are hateful, toxic, dangerous peddlers of mis/disinformation and are silenced, cancelled or deplatformed. Just see what response this post gets. At best it will be ignored, but most likely it will be downvoted for brazen non-compliance to state imposed doublegoodthink, or my identity will be linked to some left-field poster from the past. I might be asked to provide conclusive evidence to support any alternative opinion I may hold without which my views are invalid because... "science". Any evidence which is not immediately available on a "credible" source and fact-checked is invalid. Chairman Mao, Erich Honecker and any of the glorious leaders would be so proud of the Orwellian times under which we live today.
I haven't formed an opinion on the topic in question yet having been disappointed that we didn't win and then just thinking the events in Spain and the global reporting of them are just too weird to get my head round despite various posters in this thread pointing out that it's quite simple to understand really. |
Interestingly the one who is spouting state sponsored lines is you. It's our current government who keep harping on about how you can't say anything these days without being cancelled by some non-existent power. If you want to have original or even contrary opinions then make sure they are at least original or contrary. |  |
| |
| I don’t understand on 16:20 - Sep 6 with 1369 views | HankScorpio |
| I don’t understand on 13:06 - Sep 6 by Cafe_Newman |
"Holding a different opinion isn't hateful, toxic, dangerous peddling of mis/disinformation. Holding hateful, toxic, mis/disinformation opinions is hateful, toxic, dangerous peddling of mis/disinformation."
"hateful, toxic, dangerous " - all rather subjective, right?
"And why do you talk of evidence and science as if they're dirty words?"
I didn't. It's your subjective opinion which has lead you to that opinion.
Subjective evidence is not good evidence and shouldn't be used in science.
Furthermore the existence of something demonstrated by evidence does not mean that thing's non-existence when the evidence is destroyed, hidden, no longer accessible or accessible to just a few. When people start to believe it does, we are well on our way to living in the dark ages again. [Post edited 6 Sep 2023 13:09]
|
 |  |
| I expect nothing from you, except to die and be a very cheap funeral. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| I don’t understand on 18:56 - Sep 6 with 1269 views | eireblue |
Tsk tsk, when did people start believing the words of flibbertigibbet young girls, when a proper bloke is involved. |  | | |
| I don’t understand on 19:12 - Sep 6 with 1255 views | ibbleobble |
| I don’t understand on 17:41 - Sep 5 by redrickstuhaart |
Not unfair at all. How can you lead a team of women if you don't stand firmly by their side on this? |
Depends how firmly you stand. I’m sure there’s a sexual assault charge there somewhere. | | | |
| I don’t understand on 14:28 - Sep 7 with 1174 views | Cafe_Newman |
| I don’t understand on 16:15 - Sep 6 by Herbivore |
Interestingly the one who is spouting state sponsored lines is you. It's our current government who keep harping on about how you can't say anything these days without being cancelled by some non-existent power. If you want to have original or even contrary opinions then make sure they are at least original or contrary. |
I think you have missed my point. I don't want to have original or contrary opinions for the sake of it, that would be just weird. I want to be able to express disagreement without others throwing their toys out of the pram to such as extent that the intended result is that I just shut up and live with what I disagree with. You know, the sort of right to exercise free speech that a democracy is supposed to encourage. If, as you say, the government really is harping on about protecting free speech, that's a good thing, isn't it?
And back on topic: I don't remember hearing that the government line is support for Rubiales, but if it is, please link me to a report which says as much. | | | |
| I don’t understand on 14:33 - Sep 7 with 1167 views | HankScorpio |
| I don’t understand on 14:28 - Sep 7 by Cafe_Newman |
I think you have missed my point. I don't want to have original or contrary opinions for the sake of it, that would be just weird. I want to be able to express disagreement without others throwing their toys out of the pram to such as extent that the intended result is that I just shut up and live with what I disagree with. You know, the sort of right to exercise free speech that a democracy is supposed to encourage. If, as you say, the government really is harping on about protecting free speech, that's a good thing, isn't it?
And back on topic: I don't remember hearing that the government line is support for Rubiales, but if it is, please link me to a report which says as much. |
 | |
| I expect nothing from you, except to die and be a very cheap funeral. |
| |
| I don’t understand on 14:37 - Sep 7 with 1161 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| I don’t understand on 13:06 - Sep 6 by Cafe_Newman |
"Holding a different opinion isn't hateful, toxic, dangerous peddling of mis/disinformation. Holding hateful, toxic, mis/disinformation opinions is hateful, toxic, dangerous peddling of mis/disinformation."
"hateful, toxic, dangerous " - all rather subjective, right?
"And why do you talk of evidence and science as if they're dirty words?"
I didn't. It's your subjective opinion which has lead you to that opinion.
Subjective evidence is not good evidence and shouldn't be used in science.
Furthermore the existence of something demonstrated by evidence does not mean that thing's non-existence when the evidence is destroyed, hidden, no longer accessible or accessible to just a few. When people start to believe it does, we are well on our way to living in the dark ages again. [Post edited 6 Sep 2023 13:09]
|
I'd say people with an ounce of intelligence and empathy would be able to discern what is hateful, toxic and dangerous. They're not really that subjective if you've got a brain in your nut.
You come across as if "subjective" is an excuse for saying/posting hateful stuff. Just my subjective opinion of course  . |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| I don’t understand on 15:04 - Sep 7 with 1143 views | Cafe_Newman |
| I don’t understand on 14:37 - Sep 7 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I'd say people with an ounce of intelligence and empathy would be able to discern what is hateful, toxic and dangerous. They're not really that subjective if you've got a brain in your nut.
You come across as if "subjective" is an excuse for saying/posting hateful stuff. Just my subjective opinion of course . |
"You come across as if "subjective" is an excuse for saying/posting hateful stuff. Just my subjective opinion of course ."
Nope, I'm a very "live and let live" type of person, but I wouldn't want our legal system to have "hate crimes" or "crimes of mis/disinformation" without a very clear definition of what is meant by "hate", "mis/disinformation". If things are not clearly defined, almost anything could be construed as hateful or dangerous in terms of mis/disinformation if the government does like you - it's happened before in history as you know - perhaps our government is wonderful and I have absolutely nothing to be worried about. | | | |
| I don’t understand on 16:43 - Sep 7 with 1112 views | Herbivore |
| I don’t understand on 14:28 - Sep 7 by Cafe_Newman |
I think you have missed my point. I don't want to have original or contrary opinions for the sake of it, that would be just weird. I want to be able to express disagreement without others throwing their toys out of the pram to such as extent that the intended result is that I just shut up and live with what I disagree with. You know, the sort of right to exercise free speech that a democracy is supposed to encourage. If, as you say, the government really is harping on about protecting free speech, that's a good thing, isn't it?
And back on topic: I don't remember hearing that the government line is support for Rubiales, but if it is, please link me to a report which says as much. |
The government says it wants to protect free speech, whilst simultaneously legislating to prevent schools from teaching materials they consider to be subversive (which includes anything deemed anti-capitalist, including the original BLM movement), and vetting the social media of anyone invited to give a talk to government departments so they can ban anyone who has ever expressed anti-government views. So effectively, the government wants free speech for those who express views it considers acceptable, which includes the far right (who they are legislating for universities to be unable to no platform) but not for those views it finds unacceptable. I rather think that the views you think aren't allowed to be expressed anymore are precisely the ones the government is seeking to protect. [Post edited 8 Sep 2023 7:44]
| |
| |
| I don’t understand on 16:50 - Sep 7 with 1098 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| I don’t understand on 15:04 - Sep 7 by Cafe_Newman |
"You come across as if "subjective" is an excuse for saying/posting hateful stuff. Just my subjective opinion of course ."
Nope, I'm a very "live and let live" type of person, but I wouldn't want our legal system to have "hate crimes" or "crimes of mis/disinformation" without a very clear definition of what is meant by "hate", "mis/disinformation". If things are not clearly defined, almost anything could be construed as hateful or dangerous in terms of mis/disinformation if the government does like you - it's happened before in history as you know - perhaps our government is wonderful and I have absolutely nothing to be worried about. |
If you're talking about what the government prescribes as ok/not ok then fair enough, but I think that's a different discussion.
Generally, I don't need "hate", "hate crimes" or "mis/disinformation" to be defined. They're pretty damn obvious to decent people. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| I don’t understand on 06:38 - Sep 8 with 1018 views | Cafe_Newman |
| I don’t understand on 14:47 - Sep 6 by Ryorry |
What a heap of disingenuous, self-justifying nonsense.
If you’re not already a politician, you missed your vocation. |
Zounds!
(I love you too) | | | |
| I don’t understand on 07:47 - Sep 8 with 988 views | Herbivore |
| I don’t understand on 06:38 - Sep 8 by Cafe_Newman |
Zounds!
(I love you too) |
I think the problem is that you confound freedom of speech with the freedom to say things and go completely unchallenged. There is no genuine threat to freedom of speech, other than the ones I've outlined where it's certainly not 'old fashioned' that the government is trying to ban. What there is now in the age of social media is a platform where people can say things to wider audiences and some of that audience, indeed most of that audience sometimes, can exercise their right to free speech by telling those people they are berks. The right to free speech doesn't carry with it a right for what you say to be liked or even respected. [Post edited 8 Sep 2023 7:49]
| |
| |
| I don’t understand on 08:41 - Sep 8 with 958 views | Cafe_Newman |
| I don’t understand on 07:47 - Sep 8 by Herbivore |
I think the problem is that you confound freedom of speech with the freedom to say things and go completely unchallenged. There is no genuine threat to freedom of speech, other than the ones I've outlined where it's certainly not 'old fashioned' that the government is trying to ban. What there is now in the age of social media is a platform where people can say things to wider audiences and some of that audience, indeed most of that audience sometimes, can exercise their right to free speech by telling those people they are berks. The right to free speech doesn't carry with it a right for what you say to be liked or even respected. [Post edited 8 Sep 2023 7:49]
|
"The right to free speech doesn't carry with it a right for what you say to be liked or even respected."
I completely agree with that. The problem for me is when those with alternative or dissenting voices are banned, arrested, fined or imprisoned. I'm not so naive to think that it's fine for anybody to spout whatever they want and demand an audience.We have laws to prevent people calling for the extermination of certain faiths, nationalities etc - but laws need to be tight and not open to wide differences in interpretation. We all have the power to ignore those whose opinions we dislike and I would rather maintain that power than have a government or society filtering out what opinions should be heard on my behalf. Banning the existence of everything which someone else considers inappropriate is not at the core of a free, grown-up society where science and art are allowed to flourish. | | | |
| I don’t understand on 08:52 - Sep 8 with 943 views | Herbivore |
| I don’t understand on 08:41 - Sep 8 by Cafe_Newman |
"The right to free speech doesn't carry with it a right for what you say to be liked or even respected."
I completely agree with that. The problem for me is when those with alternative or dissenting voices are banned, arrested, fined or imprisoned. I'm not so naive to think that it's fine for anybody to spout whatever they want and demand an audience.We have laws to prevent people calling for the extermination of certain faiths, nationalities etc - but laws need to be tight and not open to wide differences in interpretation. We all have the power to ignore those whose opinions we dislike and I would rather maintain that power than have a government or society filtering out what opinions should be heard on my behalf. Banning the existence of everything which someone else considers inappropriate is not at the core of a free, grown-up society where science and art are allowed to flourish. |
Can you give some concrete examples of individuals being imprisoned for expressing opinions please.
If you worry about the government silencing folk then I've already given you examples of the stuff you should be worried about, and trust me it's not people saying "You know what, it was just a kiss" who need to be worried. | |
| |
| I don’t understand on 08:59 - Sep 8 with 934 views | Swansea_Blue |
| I don’t understand on 11:46 - Sep 6 by Cafe_Newman |
It used to be okay to disagree but not today. In these enlightened times of inclusion, there are permitted narratives and those who exercise their right to speak freely and hold a different opinion are hateful, toxic, dangerous peddlers of mis/disinformation and are silenced, cancelled or deplatformed. Just see what response this post gets. At best it will be ignored, but most likely it will be downvoted for brazen non-compliance to state imposed doublegoodthink, or my identity will be linked to some left-field poster from the past. I might be asked to provide conclusive evidence to support any alternative opinion I may hold without which my views are invalid because... "science". Any evidence which is not immediately available on a "credible" source and fact-checked is invalid. Chairman Mao, Erich Honecker and any of the glorious leaders would be so proud of the Orwellian times under which we live today.
I haven't formed an opinion on the topic in question yet having been disappointed that we didn't win and then just thinking the events in Spain and the global reporting of them are just too weird to get my head round despite various posters in this thread pointing out that it's quite simple to understand really. |
Regarding your last point, it really is quite simple. People shouldn’t force themselves on women (or anyone for that matter). Respect people’s wishes, feelings and personal space.
That’s my take on it anyway. I won’t cancel you (whatever that means) if you don’t agree. And I may be due a woosh, as it seems so obvious I’m wondering if I’ve missed something. |  |
| |
| I don’t understand on 09:06 - Sep 8 with 929 views | Cafe_Newman |
| I don’t understand on 08:59 - Sep 8 by Swansea_Blue |
Regarding your last point, it really is quite simple. People shouldn’t force themselves on women (or anyone for that matter). Respect people’s wishes, feelings and personal space.
That’s my take on it anyway. I won’t cancel you (whatever that means) if you don’t agree. And I may be due a woosh, as it seems so obvious I’m wondering if I’ve missed something. |
I agree that people should not force themselves on others. I do not agree that I should always respect someone's wishes and feelings. You may have terrible wishes and ridiculous feelings - I'll accept you have a right to express them, but I'm not sure why I should always respect them. | | | |
| I don’t understand on 09:13 - Sep 8 with 925 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| I don’t understand on 08:41 - Sep 8 by Cafe_Newman |
"The right to free speech doesn't carry with it a right for what you say to be liked or even respected."
I completely agree with that. The problem for me is when those with alternative or dissenting voices are banned, arrested, fined or imprisoned. I'm not so naive to think that it's fine for anybody to spout whatever they want and demand an audience.We have laws to prevent people calling for the extermination of certain faiths, nationalities etc - but laws need to be tight and not open to wide differences in interpretation. We all have the power to ignore those whose opinions we dislike and I would rather maintain that power than have a government or society filtering out what opinions should be heard on my behalf. Banning the existence of everything which someone else considers inappropriate is not at the core of a free, grown-up society where science and art are allowed to flourish. |
"The problem for me is when those with alternative or dissenting voices are banned, arrested, fined or imprisoned."
Those with alternative voices aren't banned, arrested, fined or imprisoned (at least not in this country). It's people with offensive hate speech that get banned, arrested, fined or imprisoned (and rightly so). | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
