| I was talking to..... on 13:12 - Feb 16 with 2022 views | reusersfreekicks |
| I was talking to..... on 12:24 - Feb 16 by Bloots |
....an intelligent gentleman, previously of this parish, the other day.
He described you as having the patience of a saint when dealing with these people.
I can see exactly what he means.
You are better at this than most. |
That is such an inaccurate misguided summary to just lump in people concerned re the way the world is turning. He hijacked the thread with barely relevant free speech agenda. |  | |  |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 13:16 - Feb 16 with 2001 views | reusersfreekicks |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 11:10 - Feb 16 by Herbivore |
Amusing to see a one person car crash free wheeling around accusing "the left" of wanting to censor free speech when nobody has said that and people have in fact simply called out clear falsehoods from Vance and expressed strong views about the danger his rhetoric poses. Imagine expending this much time and energy making up and arguing against a point nobody has made so you can defend a feckwit like Vance. Staggering really. [Post edited 16 Feb 11:16]
|
Exactly what has happened. But apparently we are the usual suspects ganging up on someone.
Baloney | | | |
| I was talking to..... on 13:17 - Feb 16 with 1981 views | reusersfreekicks |
| I was talking to..... on 12:58 - Feb 16 by J2BLUE |
The balance of the forum has been all wrong since GB was banned. |
Please expand | | | |
| I was talking to..... on 13:17 - Feb 16 with 1981 views | eireblue |
| I was talking to..... on 12:24 - Feb 16 by Bloots |
....an intelligent gentleman, previously of this parish, the other day.
He described you as having the patience of a saint when dealing with these people.
I can see exactly what he means.
You are better at this than most. |
In this case lowie agrees with everyone else.
He has just created a straw man, made an inference, and argued against it.
Lowie agrees in free speech, that it is not absolute, he agrees there are and should be laws to prevent incitement to violence and hate speech, he even agrees that what JD Vance said was wrong and bad.
He just wants to marginalise some people, apparently hard left types, incorrectly, of being against free speech.
Lowie is also a proponent of trying to find common ground with opponents.
Not entirely sure he has done something here that could be described as “better”. |  | | |
| It's basically just..... on 13:32 - Feb 16 with 1916 views | Dubtractor |
| It's basically just..... on 13:05 - Feb 16 by Bloots |
.....the same 4 or 5 posters shouting relentlessly at anyone that disagrees with them.
It would inevitably be called a "pile on" if it was anyone else doing it.
Although since GB got banned I've seen a distinct lack of threads about Gaza/Israel being started by a certain poster. I wonder why? |
As a general observation on lowhouse I'd agree, but not in this thread.
A few days ago you had a (light hearted) dig at dollers for being able to create and extend arguments over many pages of threads. That's exactly what your man has done here. I doubt he even disagrees with the original point that what vance is saying is concerning, but has decided to make sport over semantics over about 50 posts.
It's pretty tedious.
Edit: this was meant to be a reply to your other comment. Makes more sense as a reply to that! [Post edited 16 Feb 13:55]
|  |
| |
| It's basically just..... on 13:52 - Feb 16 with 1832 views | StokieBlue |
| It's basically just..... on 13:05 - Feb 16 by Bloots |
.....the same 4 or 5 posters shouting relentlessly at anyone that disagrees with them.
It would inevitably be called a "pile on" if it was anyone else doing it.
Although since GB got banned I've seen a distinct lack of threads about Gaza/Israel being started by a certain poster. I wonder why? |
Nice signature....
The fact that you think you aren't part of the problems is the biggest case of cognitive dissonance on the forum.
SB |  | | |
| That may well be the case.... on 14:02 - Feb 16 with 1783 views | Bloots |
| It's basically just..... on 13:32 - Feb 16 by Dubtractor |
As a general observation on lowhouse I'd agree, but not in this thread.
A few days ago you had a (light hearted) dig at dollers for being able to create and extend arguments over many pages of threads. That's exactly what your man has done here. I doubt he even disagrees with the original point that what vance is saying is concerning, but has decided to make sport over semantics over about 50 posts.
It's pretty tedious.
Edit: this was meant to be a reply to your other comment. Makes more sense as a reply to that! [Post edited 16 Feb 13:55]
|
....and I wasn't really talking specifically about this thread, but more the general direction the forum has taken lately.
I'm always amazed by some people's inability to ignore posts that they plainly consider to be "trolling" or just looking for an argument. They are essentially giving the points credence by joining in.
It takes two to tango. Or in this forum's case 4 or 5 to tango.
Anyway, this is derailing the bickering, so I'll sod off now! |  |
| "He's been a really positive influence on my life, I think he's a great man" - TWTD User (May 2025) |
| |
| That may well be the case.... on 14:10 - Feb 16 with 1758 views | Dubtractor |
| That may well be the case.... on 14:02 - Feb 16 by Bloots |
....and I wasn't really talking specifically about this thread, but more the general direction the forum has taken lately.
I'm always amazed by some people's inability to ignore posts that they plainly consider to be "trolling" or just looking for an argument. They are essentially giving the points credence by joining in.
It takes two to tango. Or in this forum's case 4 or 5 to tango.
Anyway, this is derailing the bickering, so I'll sod off now! |
As you know, I agree with your second paragraph, which is why my response to you is my only contribution to this thread after my OP! | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| I was talking to..... on 14:11 - Feb 16 with 1751 views | leitrimblue |
| I was talking to..... on 12:24 - Feb 16 by Bloots |
....an intelligent gentleman, previously of this parish, the other day.
He described you as having the patience of a saint when dealing with these people.
I can see exactly what he means.
You are better at this than most. |
Footers, Paz or CIL? |  | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 14:11 - Feb 16 with 1745 views | Herbivore |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 12:07 - Feb 16 by lowhouseblue |
people have indeed argued for free speech to be further restricted - equally they have had multiple opportunities to deny that. BUT the rest of your post i agree with entirely - you express the situation well. my position is that free speech is the best answer to the problems you describe. indeed it is the only answer. misinformation can only be countered by speech, the narrative can only be challenged with speech. falsehoods must be shown to be false. in politically dangerous times free speech becomes more critical, not less. in such times attempts to restrict free speech are even more frightening than before - such restrictions will be used by those in power to silence their critics. they will end up being used against you and people who think like you. the scenario you have set out means that free speech and human rights law needs to be championed even more strongly now than at any other time. it's not something to quibble about.
you can have an up arrow excluding your first line. |
It becomes much harder to challenge free speech with free speech alone when those seeking to control the narrative have the tools to do so - by controlling much of social media and a decent amount of traditional media, and through having power now to boot - and those who wish to counter any misinformation they might be spreading or to argue back simply don't have that same reach and power.
And while these arguments go back and forth, those who control the narrative do things that have real life impacts on people, including on other rights and freedoms we should value, with minorities and "opponents" being particular targets. Many of these free speech advocates like Vance don't even value it as an end in itself, it's politically expedient for them to champion it but they'd happily silence their critics, just look at Trump's constant attacks on "fake news", which is basically anything that questions or criticises him.
It feels like sometimes you are more worried about a few left leaning folks on a forum being a bit too vociferous than you are about the real and looming threat of the likes of Trump and Vance. You aren't alone in that either, but it's quite troubling as this is how populists, particularly far right ones, normalise their world view and marginalise their critics. |  |
| |
| StupidBigMouthHead. #legend. (n/t) on 14:13 - Feb 16 with 1724 views | Bloots |
| I was talking to..... on 14:11 - Feb 16 by leitrimblue |
Footers, Paz or CIL? |
| |
| "He's been a really positive influence on my life, I think he's a great man" - TWTD User (May 2025) |
| |
| I was talking to..... on 14:25 - Feb 16 with 1625 views | lowhouseblue |
| I was talking to..... on 13:17 - Feb 16 by eireblue |
In this case lowie agrees with everyone else.
He has just created a straw man, made an inference, and argued against it.
Lowie agrees in free speech, that it is not absolute, he agrees there are and should be laws to prevent incitement to violence and hate speech, he even agrees that what JD Vance said was wrong and bad.
He just wants to marginalise some people, apparently hard left types, incorrectly, of being against free speech.
Lowie is also a proponent of trying to find common ground with opponents.
Not entirely sure he has done something here that could be described as “better”. |
"Lowie agrees in free speech, that it is not absolute, he agrees there are and should be laws to prevent incitement to violence and hate speech, he even agrees that what JD Vance said was wrong and bad."
there are indeed laws that properly limit free speech (there is uk law no such things as 'hate speech' - there are instead appropriae incitement and harassment laws). vance has got no where near breaching any of those laws. people on here want to go beyond the law to restrict the speech of people with whom they disagree. wanting to go beyond the law is being against free speech. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| I was talking to..... on 14:25 - Feb 16 with 1656 views | J2BLUE |
As you asked so nicely.
For many years now this board has had two groups of posters who don't really agree on much politically and perhaps socially. It's a delicate balance. With GB gone and the other side growing in number by the week the board is now not much fun. To join that side it seems you have to leave your personality at the door and become a dour joyless member of the TWTD board police demanding answers and treating the board like it's the House of Commons. It's been sad to see a number of previously excellent posters get radicalised and patrol the board looking for things to be offended by.
They also have an excellent propaganda department where they frequently project their own actions on to the rest of us. The classic being the 'running to Phil' line while they are running to Phil and waving the imaginary yellow cards.
I realise some won't agree but you asked so I answered.
I now wait for the inevitable 12 responses from that side who will completely rewrite history and then pat each other on the back. Bingo card at the ready for all the buzzwords. I'll take disingenuous as my free square.
 |  |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 14:34 - Feb 16 with 1571 views | lowhouseblue |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 14:11 - Feb 16 by Herbivore |
It becomes much harder to challenge free speech with free speech alone when those seeking to control the narrative have the tools to do so - by controlling much of social media and a decent amount of traditional media, and through having power now to boot - and those who wish to counter any misinformation they might be spreading or to argue back simply don't have that same reach and power.
And while these arguments go back and forth, those who control the narrative do things that have real life impacts on people, including on other rights and freedoms we should value, with minorities and "opponents" being particular targets. Many of these free speech advocates like Vance don't even value it as an end in itself, it's politically expedient for them to champion it but they'd happily silence their critics, just look at Trump's constant attacks on "fake news", which is basically anything that questions or criticises him.
It feels like sometimes you are more worried about a few left leaning folks on a forum being a bit too vociferous than you are about the real and looming threat of the likes of Trump and Vance. You aren't alone in that either, but it's quite troubling as this is how populists, particularly far right ones, normalise their world view and marginalise their critics. |
no one posts on here in support of trump and vance.
the media now allows much more space for diverse views than it did 30 years ago when all we really had was printed media. the multiplication of channels through which people can express their own views and challenge others, far out weighs the fact that some of social media is owned by one man. 30 years ago the chances are the only way you would have had of publicly expressing your views would have been a letter to the eadt. speech now is much more diverse and accessible to far more people. never before have there been so many means to publicly challenge stuff you disagree with. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| It's basically just..... on 14:39 - Feb 16 with 1514 views | lowhouseblue |
| It's basically just..... on 13:32 - Feb 16 by Dubtractor |
As a general observation on lowhouse I'd agree, but not in this thread.
A few days ago you had a (light hearted) dig at dollers for being able to create and extend arguments over many pages of threads. That's exactly what your man has done here. I doubt he even disagrees with the original point that what vance is saying is concerning, but has decided to make sport over semantics over about 50 posts.
It's pretty tedious.
Edit: this was meant to be a reply to your other comment. Makes more sense as a reply to that! [Post edited 16 Feb 13:55]
|
that's probably pretty fair. i find it hard not to reply when people have taken the trouble to respond to me specifically - it feels impolite. when you have the usual half dozen persuing you that does become dull. but if you don't reply they claim it as proof that they must be right. perhaps they could form a tag team and take it in turns? | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| I was talking to..... on 14:42 - Feb 16 with 1517 views | positivity |
| I was talking to..... on 14:25 - Feb 16 by J2BLUE |
As you asked so nicely.
For many years now this board has had two groups of posters who don't really agree on much politically and perhaps socially. It's a delicate balance. With GB gone and the other side growing in number by the week the board is now not much fun. To join that side it seems you have to leave your personality at the door and become a dour joyless member of the TWTD board police demanding answers and treating the board like it's the House of Commons. It's been sad to see a number of previously excellent posters get radicalised and patrol the board looking for things to be offended by.
They also have an excellent propaganda department where they frequently project their own actions on to the rest of us. The classic being the 'running to Phil' line while they are running to Phil and waving the imaginary yellow cards.
I realise some won't agree but you asked so I answered.
I now wait for the inevitable 12 responses from that side who will completely rewrite history and then pat each other on the back. Bingo card at the ready for all the buzzwords. I'll take disingenuous as my free square.
|
this looks fun! is the "bore off" square taken? failing that, i'll go for "move on" |  |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 15:00 - Feb 16 with 1432 views | Herbivore |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 14:34 - Feb 16 by lowhouseblue |
no one posts on here in support of trump and vance.
the media now allows much more space for diverse views than it did 30 years ago when all we really had was printed media. the multiplication of channels through which people can express their own views and challenge others, far out weighs the fact that some of social media is owned by one man. 30 years ago the chances are the only way you would have had of publicly expressing your views would have been a letter to the eadt. speech now is much more diverse and accessible to far more people. never before have there been so many means to publicly challenge stuff you disagree with. |
I think that's a bit naive and idealistic take but will happily agree to disagree on that. | |
| |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 15:01 - Feb 16 with 1424 views | SWBlue22 |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 09:45 - Feb 15 by Benters |
He’s not wrong ie this. |
Absolutely he's not wrong. Well said JD Vance. |  | | |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 15:08 - Feb 16 with 1378 views | positivity |
| JD Vance being somewhat rude to his hosts on 15:01 - Feb 16 by SWBlue22 |
Absolutely he's not wrong. Well said JD Vance. |
which bit was correct?
the bit where he said it was illegal for people to pray in their own homes in scotland?
the bit where he criticised sweden for the fact that it's free expression laws don't give a ‘free pass’ to do or say anything?
you're going to have to help us out here! | |
| |
| I was talking to..... on 15:09 - Feb 16 with 1371 views | Herbivore |
| I was talking to..... on 14:25 - Feb 16 by J2BLUE |
As you asked so nicely.
For many years now this board has had two groups of posters who don't really agree on much politically and perhaps socially. It's a delicate balance. With GB gone and the other side growing in number by the week the board is now not much fun. To join that side it seems you have to leave your personality at the door and become a dour joyless member of the TWTD board police demanding answers and treating the board like it's the House of Commons. It's been sad to see a number of previously excellent posters get radicalised and patrol the board looking for things to be offended by.
They also have an excellent propaganda department where they frequently project their own actions on to the rest of us. The classic being the 'running to Phil' line while they are running to Phil and waving the imaginary yellow cards.
I realise some won't agree but you asked so I answered.
I now wait for the inevitable 12 responses from that side who will completely rewrite history and then pat each other on the back. Bingo card at the ready for all the buzzwords. I'll take disingenuous as my free square.
|
Blub. | |
| |
| I was talking to..... on 16:33 - Feb 16 with 1174 views | eireblue |
| I was talking to..... on 14:25 - Feb 16 by lowhouseblue |
"Lowie agrees in free speech, that it is not absolute, he agrees there are and should be laws to prevent incitement to violence and hate speech, he even agrees that what JD Vance said was wrong and bad."
there are indeed laws that properly limit free speech (there is uk law no such things as 'hate speech' - there are instead appropriae incitement and harassment laws). vance has got no where near breaching any of those laws. people on here want to go beyond the law to restrict the speech of people with whom they disagree. wanting to go beyond the law is being against free speech. |
Nobody has said the want to go beyond those laws.
“We cannot let this evil and dangerous form of "free speech" become the norm here.”
US an EU have different laws on free speech.
You have been defending the EHRC quite a lot.
JDV was giving examples that he did not like, and were in fact false.
He was attacking EHRC free speech as we have it in Europe.
If he was posting that on TWTD, no real danger.
As US VP, somewhat concerning maybe bordering on dangerous. Especially when you factor in the examples used included restrictions on Social Media, and JDV is in power, backed by a Social Media owning billionaire.
The only thing you at the poster need to debate about is the term evil, and degree of danger.
You agree on pretty much everything and no one is asking to stop JDV talking nonsense.
I read a desire that our politicians do not go down the path of using lies to attack things like EHCR.
In fact, there is so little between you I am surprised you didn’t focus on establishing the common ground first with your fellow posters. | | | |
| I was talking to..... on 17:12 - Feb 16 with 1079 views | Clapham_Junction |
| I was talking to..... on 12:58 - Feb 16 by J2BLUE |
The balance of the forum has been all wrong since GB was banned. |
I'm not so sure about this. I suspect GB would be onside with the the majority in this thread as he had no time for the likes of Trump and Vance.
The issue is more than the main antagonist in this thread has drifted further and further to the right over the years and starting at some point in the Johnson era, has effectively started playing 'defend the indefensible'. They also haven't done themselves any favours by repeatedly playing the man not the ball (despite complaining about others doing the same).
As I said at the time, I was surprised GB got banned. At least he contributed seriously to debates like this rather than just trolling or baying from the fringes like the other two who somehow didn't. |  | | |
| I was talking to..... on 17:37 - Feb 16 with 971 views | Benters |
| I was talking to..... on 14:25 - Feb 16 by J2BLUE |
As you asked so nicely.
For many years now this board has had two groups of posters who don't really agree on much politically and perhaps socially. It's a delicate balance. With GB gone and the other side growing in number by the week the board is now not much fun. To join that side it seems you have to leave your personality at the door and become a dour joyless member of the TWTD board police demanding answers and treating the board like it's the House of Commons. It's been sad to see a number of previously excellent posters get radicalised and patrol the board looking for things to be offended by.
They also have an excellent propaganda department where they frequently project their own actions on to the rest of us. The classic being the 'running to Phil' line while they are running to Phil and waving the imaginary yellow cards.
I realise some won't agree but you asked so I answered.
I now wait for the inevitable 12 responses from that side who will completely rewrite history and then pat each other on the back. Bingo card at the ready for all the buzzwords. I'll take disingenuous as my free square.
|
Good work. |  |
| |
| I was talking to..... on 17:39 - Feb 16 with 957 views | lowhouseblue |
| I was talking to..... on 17:12 - Feb 16 by Clapham_Junction |
I'm not so sure about this. I suspect GB would be onside with the the majority in this thread as he had no time for the likes of Trump and Vance.
The issue is more than the main antagonist in this thread has drifted further and further to the right over the years and starting at some point in the Johnson era, has effectively started playing 'defend the indefensible'. They also haven't done themselves any favours by repeatedly playing the man not the ball (despite complaining about others doing the same).
As I said at the time, I was surprised GB got banned. At least he contributed seriously to debates like this rather than just trolling or baying from the fringes like the other two who somehow didn't. |
but my politics haven't changed at all. i've just got more and more bored by the group think that passes for the left clique on here. i promise i have always been a critic of intolerance, simplistic cliches, and illiberal attitudes - there is just so much more of it than there used to be. the illiberalism genuinely worries me if i'm honest - i do fear that with farage on one side and this on the other we may be heading to a very bad place. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| I was talking to..... on 18:12 - Feb 16 with 860 views | NewcyBlue |
| I was talking to..... on 17:39 - Feb 16 by lowhouseblue |
but my politics haven't changed at all. i've just got more and more bored by the group think that passes for the left clique on here. i promise i have always been a critic of intolerance, simplistic cliches, and illiberal attitudes - there is just so much more of it than there used to be. the illiberalism genuinely worries me if i'm honest - i do fear that with farage on one side and this on the other we may be heading to a very bad place. |
The problem is that being tolerant of intolerance just allows intolerance to grow and become more acceptable in society.
Where do you do draw the line?
Is the U.K. law enough? Should it be harsher? Should there be more education about freedom of speech not meaning the freedom of consequence?
It could easily cascade, and JD Vance deliberately stated something as factual incorrectly. At what point do we hold politicians to account over such inaccuracies, keeping in mind the political views that they hold.
It is all well and good being a critic of intolerance, but tolerating intolerant beliefs is a poorer way to conduct one’s self. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
