Morrissey Central "IRISH BL❤️❤️D" (January 18, 2024)

The bill also makes it a crime to condone, deny, or grossly trivialize genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes.
So anyone in Dublin of Turkish origin who denies the genocide in Anatolia had better be careful.
Does that mean, ironically, it'd be a crime for a Zionist to say there isn't a genocide going on in Gaza/Palestine? What about the ethnic cleansing of Russians in Ukraine since 2014? Or the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo and Serbian Krajina? Talk about how the tables have turned lol, these laws can be weaponized against anyone in theory
 
Bart: You know what would have been scarier than nothing, Lis?

Lisa: What? [reciting “darkness there and nothing more” scene from The Raven]

Bart: Anything!

>>

Us: You know what would have been better to put up on your website than this, Moz?

Moz: What?

Us: Anything!
 

Us: You know what would have been better to put up on your website than this, Moz?

Moz: What?

Us: Anything!


‘Us’ ?
 
I don’t know. There are laws to be respected. And human beings. If you (not YOU specifically) can’t express an opinion without being abusive, then maybe you should try a little harder and learn to express yourself more eloquently.

f*ck.

There goes half of my record collection.
 
f*ck.

There goes half of my record collection.
Is there a lot of hate speech on the records you own? If not, I think you’re fine.

Again:
  • “You can be offensive, say things that make others uncomfortable, have full and robust debate”
  • “You cannot incite hatred or violence against others
  • “You cannot use extreme forms of speech to deliberately and recklessly encourage or incite other people to hate or cause harm to a person because of your views
 
Is there a lot of hate speech on the records you own? If not, I think you’re fine.

But who, down the road, defines what ‘hate speech’ is and isn’t? Especially in art?
As far as I’m concerned… there must never be any laws forbidding expression of any kind when it comes to art.

Again:
  • “You can be offensive, say things that make others uncomfortable, have full and robust debate”
Ok.
  • “You cannot incite hatred or violence against others”
  • “You cannot use extreme forms of speech to deliberately and recklessly encourage or incite other people to hate or cause harm to a person because of your views”

Why do we treat adults like children?

No matter how ‘inspiring’ someone is in their
rhetoric, shouldn’t it be up to the ones listening to make up their own minds to act responsibly and behave in a civil way?

Why does society create people that would be sucked into believing hate speech and then commit crimes?
 
The department has stressed that the legislation is “not a new or radical departure in Irish law” and said it wants to be clear about what is, and what isn’t, intended with the bill.

For example, it says:

  • “You will still be able to offend other people or express views which make others uncomfortable”
  • “You will still be able to debate and discuss issues regarding protecting characteristics”
  • “The new law includes defences for reasonable and genuine contributions to literary, artistic, political, scientific, religious or academic discourse, and fair and accurate reporting”
  • “You can be offensive, say things that make others uncomfortable, have full and robust debate”
  • “You cannot incite hatred or violence against others”
  • “You cannot use extreme forms of speech to deliberately and recklessly encourage or incite other people to hate or cause harm to a person because of your views”
Freedom of expression is a protected right under both the Irish constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Seems to be a fairly simple update to a 1989 "hate law" that also takes account of the internet instead of just "broadcasts"

Although is it possible the minister with responsibility for passing this law could have already contravened the last 2 stipulations, by publicly referring to people on the streets that day as thugs and scumbags?

Is that where the blurriness comes in? If so, after those last 2 stipulations, perhaps a condition should be added, such as, depending on who is speaking or writing, and who the hate targets are?
 
But who, down the road, defines what ‘hate speech’ is and isn’t? Especially in art?
Legislators, I guess. When it comes to laws.
As far as I’m concerned… there must never be any laws forbidding expression of any kind when it comes to art.


Ok.


Why do we treat adults like children?

No matter how ‘inspiring’ someone is in their
rhetoric, shouldn’t it be up to the ones listening to make up their own minds to act responsibly and behave in a civil way?

Why does society create people that would be sucked into believing hate speech and then commit crimes?
Agree.

It should be up to the ones listening. And I don’t know why certain people are prone to believe hate speech etc. But they do and we as a society need laws to prevent these things from spiraling way out of control (more than it already does).
 
But who, down the road, defines what ‘hate speech’ is and isn’t? Especially in art?
As far as I’m concerned… there must never be any laws forbidding expression of any kind when it comes to art.


Ok.


Why do we treat adults like children?

No matter how ‘inspiring’ someone is in their
rhetoric, shouldn’t it be up to the ones listening to make up their own minds to act responsibly and behave in a civil way?

Why does society create people that would be sucked into believing hate speech and then commit crimes?
I was just writing a post very similar to yours, then yours popped up (oooh-errr), and it articulated exactly what I was thinking.
 
Legislators, I guess. When it comes to laws.

Agree.

It should be up to the ones listening. And I don’t know why certain people are prone to believe hate speech etc. But they do and we as a society need laws to prevent these things from spiraling way out of control (more than it already does).
Laws don’t stop stupid people thinking stupid things.
 
Is there a lot of hate speech on the records you own? If not, I think you’re fine.
  • “You cannot incite hatred or violence against others
Well, that's 'Panic' banned for a start. How are lyrics like 'Burn down the disco' and 'Hang the DJ' anything other than inciting hatred and violence against others? :unsure:
 
This gay blade needs to stick to playing half-full theaters and not releasing albums of half-baked songs.
 
Last edited:
Ireland is going the way of Sweden and Germany. The Islamists are attempting to equate criticism of Islam with race hate.

We have reached the point where this oppressor / oppressed relationship essentially means that the supposedly oppressed party can do whatever they want without criticism, including murder.

Once a political coalition is created through this prism, moral judgments get slanted by us-vs-them thinking. This is the dead end of identity politics cult and intersectionality.

No longer champions of tolerance and free speech, the "illiberal Left" now viciously attacks and silences anyone with alternative points of view. Europe has fallen.
 
It's not all that crazy. If a novel contains so many uses of the n-word that teachers consider it impossible to continue teaching to children in the modern era because the frequency of the word makes it offputting to read the book, it makes sense to tone it down. In the Twain novels, the frequently used n-word has been replaced by 'slave' and the word 'injun' has been replaced with 'indian'. Hardly enormous wholesale edits that destroy the message of the book, despite what you are implying.

To Kill A Mockingbird is the greatest and most powerful anti-racism novel ever written, and there's no question of editing the n-word out of that, probably because it only crops up a few times (once, from memory, but I may be wrong). The Twain novels were edited because they were offputting for children to read with so many n-words in. Nothing sinister in that. It's called progress.
Literature should not be edited to please the woke, it is not 'progress'. Are you seriously saying censoring Mark Twain is progress? It is REGRESSION and OPPRESSIVE. This reminds me of the recent critcisms of Lolita, it is a story, not a tale of morality. Even Nabokov has said it's not a tale of morality.
Art should not be judged from this 'moral' point of view. The N word in Twain's work is appropriate for the time it was written, and should not be judged by today's standards. And also, let's not forget that these same 'children' who are reading the N word in great works of art are also listening to it in crap rap music, so seriously, what is the real issue here?
 
Back
Top Bottom