What's in the news?

[Lustful Bride]

Remember when Jim Carrey used to be funny. I miss those days :/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/celebrity/jim-carrey-responds-to-outrage-over-sarah-huckabee-sanders-painting-says-he’s-‘gratified’-by-the-reaction/ar-BBKsULU?ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz

Its not even that offensive, thought provoking, or well done so it fails to me as a political cartoon. :/  And I don't think its going to help anyone win any arguments or change any minds :/

[TheGlyphstone]

Remember when Jim Carrey used to be funny. I miss those days :/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/celebrity/jim-carrey-responds-to-outrage-over-sarah-huckabee-sanders-painting-says-he’s-‘gratified’-by-the-reaction/ar-BBKsULU?ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz

Busted link is busted?

[Lustful Bride]

Busted link is busted?

It works fine for me.

[TheGlyphstone]

Weird. For me your link cuts off halfway through, and redirects to the  Msn frontpage. My quoted+corrected link delivers me to the article.

[Oniya]

I think it's something to do with the punctuation they chose to put in the URL.  The apostrophe 'breaks' the code in the forum when you just paste the link without tags (the forum software looks for the 'right' place to put the tags, and doesn't parse the apostrophe correctly).  If you manually put the 'url' tags around links, or use the globe icon under the italics format on the WYSIWYG, it will prevent that from happening in the future.

LB's browser already has the full page cached, but I ended up at a page with a headline about a new Mister Rogers movie.

[TheGlyphstone]

I think you got the better end of that deal.

[Lustful Bride]

I think it's something to do with the punctuation they chose to put in the URL.  The apostrophe 'breaks' the code in the forum when you just paste the link without tags (the forum software looks for the 'right' place to put the tags, and doesn't parse the apostrophe correctly).  If you manually put the 'url' tags around links, or use the globe icon under the italics format on the WYSIWYG, it will prevent that from happening in the future.

LB's browser already has the full page cached, but I ended up at a page with a headline about a new Mister Rogers movie.

I think you got the better end of that deal.

+1

[Oniya]

Well, here you go.

(Should probably have tissues ready, though.)

[Sara Nilsson]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/politics/holocaust-denier-gop-illinois-third-district/index.html

A Holocaust denier is now officially the Republican nominee in a Chicago-area House race after running unopposed in Tuesday's primary.
Arthur Jones' campaign website includes a section titled "Holocaust?" and he has been involved with anti-Semitic and racist groups since the 1970s, according to the Anti-Defamation League.

Watching the interview actually made me very uncomfortable. How the FUCK?! Sure it is an area that is very heavily in the democrats favour and all that.. But still?!

[Vergil Tanner]

Changing the subject a little, but yesterday / today (timezones are weird) a Youtuber by the name of "Count Dankula" has been convicted of a Hate Crime and being "Grossly Offensive" in the UK.

Now, I'd never heard of CD before this happened, and when I checked him out I found somebody I really do disagree with a lot of the time, somebody I don't find funny and somebody I would probably largely ignore if I had my way.

However, the UK criminal justice system has seen fit to convict him of a hate crime because he posted a video of his girlfriends dog doing a Nazi salute when provided with certain key words and phrases. CD claims that it was a joke intended to annoy his girlfriend...and that should really be that. In what way is this a hate crime? I mean, does a Nazi Saluting Pug really serve to spread the Nazi creed? Does it actually hurt anybody in any real way? Why isn't "It was a joke" being rejected by the Judge, who says that CD did it "intending to spread hatred and harm?" I mean...what the actual fuck? And that's not even getting into the fact that even if it was "grossly offensive," why is that a crime? Nobody has the right to not be offended, since offence is such a subjective thing. It's also telling that apparently, the only witness they could get to stand against CD was an officer from the Hate Crime department in Scotland (I think,) and they had to go to him. There were no complaints from the public, no Jewish organisations campaigning against him, no holocaust survivors hunting him down...in fact, several prominent Jewish figures and organisations have come out in support of CD. But nope. No, my country has seen fit to convict CD for making an off-colour joke. What the actual fuck.

I didn't want to believe it for a long time, but this is the final straw; The UK's Free Speech Laws are absolute dogshit, and somebody needs to go in there with a flamethrower and burn it all down.
And the good thing is, I'm now in China, so those fuckers can't arrest me for threatening terrorism. >.>

[Sara Nilsson]

The 30-year-old taught his girlfriend's pug to react to the words "gas the Jews", which he repeated 23 times in the short video that he uploaded to his YouTube channel last year.

I am sorry but that isnt just a harmless prank. I really do not see how free speech is threatened when you come down on nazi shit. The whole it was a joke is such a tired defense. We are not talking about some harmless prank but gas the jews, nazi salutes etc. That is a completely different ballgame. Personally I am all for zero tolerance of that shit.

I cannot find any citation that jewish organizations defended him. He claims one person does but we only have his word.

Ephraim Borowski, 66, director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (SCoJeC), told Airdrie Sheriff Court the Holocaust should not be joked about and doing so normalised antisemitism.

And clearly the SCoJeC didn't think it was a joking matter.

[Vergil Tanner]

I am sorry but that isnt just a harmless prank. I really do not see how free speech is threatened when you come down on nazi shit. The whole it was a joke is such a tired defense. We are not talking about some harmless prank but gas the jews, nazi salutes etc. That is a completely different ballgame. Personally I am all for zero tolerance of that shit.

Well...I disagree. Either everything is ok to joke about, or nothing is. Stand Up comedians have been making racist and sexist jokes since the year dot. Do I think the joke was funny? Not really. Do I think he should be prosecuted for it? No. Are we really saying that teaching a dog to nazi-salute is equivalent to handing out pamphlets and standing on a podium in the middle of the street shouting that the Holocaust never happened or that Hitler Did Nothing Wrong?

Here's the thing, Sara. Did the joke hurt anybody? Like, do you really think that anybody looked at the video and said "You know what, that dog has really convinced me of the Nazi position," or that anybody was physically hurt by it? No? Then it was a harmless prank. Freedom of speech doesn't mean "You're free to say whatever you want...until you say something I don't like." It means that unless you are actively encouraging people to harm others, unless you are actively trying to take away other peoples rights, you can say what you want. "I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The point of the joke was that Nazi's Are Bad. The joke wouldn't be "funny" if the person doing it genuinely believed what they were saying. If you are in favour of limiting speech when it could offend people, then you are an Authoritarian and I disagree vehemently with your position.

I cannot find any citation that jewish organizations defended him. He claims one person does but we only have his word.

And clearly the SCoJeC didn't think it was a joking matter.

Ok, I will hold my hands up to that one. I'd heard that it was the case, but I can't find any immediate citations. But I will say: so?

I mean. Yeah, ok, the SCoJeC doesn't think it's funny. So what? I mean...are we now not allowed to tell jokes that some people don't think are funny? Are we supposed to never ever make a joke that could possibly be construed as offensive? Because if so, then all of humour goes down the drain because everything will be found offensive by SOMEBODY. If you say that certain things are off limits as humour, you defeat the point of humour. Hell, should we ban The Producers because it "makes light of Nazi Germany?"

[Oniya]

Mel Brooks (who served as a Combat Engineer in World War II) has said that his use of Hitler as a comedic figure is a form of revenge.  In an interview with Der Spiegel, specifically about The Producers, he not only says that 'by using the medium of comedy, we can try to rob Hitler of his posthumous power,' but also states that there are limits to comedy.  Referencing his movie 'Blazing Saddles', he says 'I would never have thought of the idea of showing how a black was lynched. It's only funny when he escapes getting sent to the gallows.'

[Vergil Tanner]

Mel Brooks (who served as a Combat Engineer in World War II) has said that his use of Hitler as a comedic figure is a form of revenge.  In an interview with Der Spiegel, specifically about The Producers, he not only says that 'by using the medium of comedy, we can try to rob Hitler of his posthumous power,' but also states that there are limits to comedy.  Referencing his movie 'Blazing Saddles', he says 'I would never have thought of the idea of showing how a black was lynched. It's only funny when he escapes getting sent to the gallows.'

Ok, so?

I mean, not to sound glib or anything, but that doesn't counter anything that I said. I don't really care whether Mel Brooks thinks that there's a limit to comedy, or whether he thinks that the saluting dog is a punishable offence. My point was that if you start banning jokes based on their subject material, it is a slippery slope and it could be applied to everybody.

I mean, taking Mel Brooks as an example...the judge outright stated that he didn't care what CD claimed he intended, so by the same logic, it wouldn't matter what Mel Brooks claimed he intended with the film. All that matters is that somebody took offence to it.

You can say that the joke was in poor taste, you can downvote his video, you can criticise his decision to film it, you can criticise him not thinking to make it a Private Video, that's fine. His freedom of speech allows him to make that joke, and your freedom of speech lets you criticise the joke. What I'm against is the government prosecuting a joke they deem "offensive" and possibly punishing the teller of said joke with prison time for making an off colour, inappropriate joke. Because where do we stop? Comedians have been telling Nazi, racist, sexist, rape and other jokes about horrific subjects for a long-ass time. Are we going to start kicking down the door and arresting them if they make a joke about certain topics?

I'm sorry, but I just can't take the idea that he should be punished under the criminal justice system for making a joke. I mean, does anybody believe that this wasn't intended as a prank on his girlfriend? Does anybody legitimately believe that this was an attempt to spread Nazi propaganda via pug? You can think that the joke shouldn't have been made and that it was offensive and in poor taste and that he's an idiot for doing it. That's fine, and I would even be inclined to agree with most of that. But I draw the line at him being punished by the criminal justice system over it. That's going way too far, and is a blatant, brazen disregard for his right to freedom of speech.
And even if you disagree with that, the knife cuts both ways. What happens when somebody else makes a joke that people decide is "Not Allowed" that you don't see as a problem? Whoops, you've already allowed precedent to be set.

That's really all I have to say on the matter. This was a joke, and the fact that he was convicted of a fucking hate crime over it is stupid, and actually goes so far as to devalue what the words "Hate Crime" actually mean. And I have to say that anybody who says that he deserves to be fined or sent to prison over making a Pug do a Nazi Salute, in my mind, demonstrably doesn't value freedom of speech. Because the true test of whether you support freedom of speech is your reaction when something you disagree with is being punished.

[Vergil Tanner]

And that is...really all I have to say on the matter. Though the amount of people who support his conviction and punishment is...rather saddening, I must admit.

[Lustful Bride]

^ I agree in part with both sides above. Its a stupid joke, unfunny, and tasteless. But isn't this abit of an overreach? It feels like this is the kind of thing that makes people into Nazis, punishing them for shitty jokes you find from shitposters and edgy teenagers who don't know any better.

I feel like it is too harsh a punishment for words that weren't even serious. These laws should be used to punish actual Nazis and other types of extremists who are calling for actual death and destruction, rather than one guy who taught his pug to raise a paw like a Nazi salute.



In other news the Texas Bomber was cornered by police, and chose to blow himself up instead of facing capture. Its scary the level of fanaticism extremists are getting these days.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/suspected-texas-bomber-kills-self-as-police-close-in-officials/ar-BBKvaB9?ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz

[Deamonbane]

The problem I see here is the paradox of tolerating intolerance.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

[Lustful Bride]

The problem I see here is the paradox of tolerating intolerance.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

But does the punishment fit the crime? And at what point do we go too far? Do we start giving fines to comedians for offensive jokes? Do we go and censor books with markers because they said something that is now offensive?

[Vergil Tanner]

The problem I see here is the paradox of tolerating intolerance.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

So you're saying that an off-colour joke...could lead to the fall of Western Democracy?

I think you're inflating this past the level of the absurd. Are you honestly, seriously suggesting that making a racist / sexist joke, regardless of intent, should be outlawed? Then I echo what Lustful Bride said; do we start fining Comedians for jokes that cross "The Line?" Should we start arresting people for making an off colour joke to their friends that happened to be overheard? We've already prosecuted and convicted a person for making a joke video that went viral without his input, so where does it stop? Where do we draw the line, and who gets to draw that line?

Of course, I also take issue with the whole principle of what you're saying. There's a difference between being tolerant of other opinions and being tolerant of actual actions that harm people. For example, being a racist person isn't illegal. Acting on that racism is. Making a racist joke isn't (or shouldn't be) illegal, but actively discriminating against somebody based on that racism is. I'm sorry Deamon, but I think you're being kinda...sensationalist about this if you honestly think that prison time is the correct response to somebody making a stupid off-colour joke. Because as soon as you label one thing off limits...that starts opening the sleuce gates. And yeah, that's a slippery slope argument, but it's applicable here. And once more...if you put in place precedent to make certain jokes actively illegal, what happens when somebody you disagree with inevitably gets into power and uses those laws to stifle jokes that they don't like? You're weaving the rope by which you will be hung.

[Lustful Bride]

I'm not saying what the guy did was right, but is this really the precedent we want to set? I would be much more comfortable with it if it was people in the streets chanting 'kill the jews' or such who were being punished rather than some neckbeard trying to be edgy for the lols.

[Deamonbane]

But does the punishment fit the crime? And at what point do we go too far? Do we start giving fines to comedians for offensive jokes? Do we go and censor books with markers because they said something that is now offensive?

There are lines you don't cross. The mass murder of what sources say are up to 17 million people would be one of them. I don't hear people cracking wise about the Ukrainian Famine Genocide that killed at least 7 million, or about the Rwandan Genocide. Why? Because they're not funny and I worry for the mental state of those who find them to be so.

Does the punishment fit the crime? Yes, it does. He's using and compounding the pain of others who lost family and friends for the sake of a shocking punchline. If he were a comedian, I'd say that people walking out on his show and lack of demand causing an end to his career as a comedian to be enough of a punishment, but since he isn't a comedian, and his 'joke' was meant to irritate his girlfriend (I say irritate, but the true definition of what he did is bully) I'd say a fine (Which is the precedent punishment for hate crimes in the UK) is warranted.

So you're saying that an off-colour joke...could lead to the fall of Western Democracy?

I think you're inflating this past the level of the absurd. Are you honestly, seriously suggesting that making a racist / sexist joke, regardless of intent, should be outlawed? Then I echo what Lustful Bride said; do we start fining Comedians for jokes that cross "The Line?" Should we start arresting people for making an off colour joke to their friends that happened to be overheard? We've already prosecuted and convicted a person for making a joke video that went viral without his input, so where does it stop? Where do we draw the line, and who gets to draw that line?

Of course, I also take issue with the whole principle of what you're saying. There's a difference between being tolerant of other opinions and being tolerant of actual actions that harm people. For example, being a racist person isn't illegal. Acting on that racism is. Making a racist joke isn't (or shouldn't be) illegal, but actively discriminating against somebody based on that racism is. I'm sorry Deamon, but I think you're being kinda...sensationalist about this if you honestly think that prison time is the correct response to somebody making a stupid off-colour joke. Because as soon as you label one thing off limits...that starts opening the sleuce gates. And yeah, that's a slippery slope argument, but it's applicable here. And once more...if you put in place precedent to make certain jokes actively illegal, what happens when somebody you disagree with inevitably gets into power and uses those laws to stifle jokes that they don't like? You're weaving the rope by which you will be hung.

I'm not saying that an off-color joke would be the end of Western Democracy. I'm saying that the fact that there are people defending it are a symptom that Western Democracy is already falling.

And you say that I'm inflating it to an absurd, but you're saying that at a time when a man who founded his entry into politics on racism, sexism and xenophobia is currently the President of a the United States of America. A man who called members of a hate group “some very fine people,” while calling black athletes 'Sons of Bitches'. Personally, I'd say that we're dangerously close to the Fourth Reich, but that's just my opinion.

So I ask you, knowing about the kind of climate that currently surrounds Western democracy at the moment, both in the US and Europe, do you really think that I'm the one being sensationalist here?

[Vergil Tanner]

There are lines you don't cross. The mass murder of what sources say are up to 17 million people would be one of them. I don't hear people cracking wise about the Ukrainian Famine Genocide that killed at least 7 million, or about the Rwandan Genocide. Why? Because they're not funny and I worry for the mental state of those who find them to be so.

Ok. So did Mr. Dankula take part in any of those massacres? Did he perhaps threaten any Jewish individuals with death or pain? Did he publicly decry the filthy Jewish scourge and claim that Hitler was entirely in the right? No. He made a Pug do a Nazi salute to annoy his girlfriend, one of his mates leaked the video and it went viral. So where in there is the crime, Deamon? Was the line making light of it at all? So you are advocating for anybody who ever makes a Nazi Joke getting prosecuted? I don't even know where to start with that. The thing is, making it a joke robs Hitler of any kind of power he has. Laughing about it and poking fun at him and doing ridiculous things like getting a Pug to do the Nazi Salute robs the Nazi's of any kind of cultural power because people actively make fun of them.

Does the punishment fit the crime? Yes, it does. He's using and compounding the pain of others who lost family and friends for the sake of a shocking punchline.

And if you honestly think that he deserves prison time for a joke, then I think you have your standards entirely out of whack and that you should never be in a position of power. I know that sounds harsh, but if you're going to put people in prison for making jokes that you don't like, you should never have the ability to do so because that would turn into a Totalitarian Nightmare pretty damn fast.
You know who else put people in prison for making jokes that they didn't like? Ironically enough, it was the Nazi's. Horseshoe theory indeed. >.>

If he were a comedian, I'd say that people walking out on his show and lack of demand causing an end to his career as a comedian to be enough of a punishment, but since he isn't a comedian, and his 'joke' was meant to irritate his girlfriend (I say irritate, but the true definition of what he did is bully) I'd say a fine (Which is the precedent punishment for hate crimes in the UK) is warranted.

You say that the end of the career would be warranted, and you know what, people might agree with you and his career might well come to an end. And that would be fine, because people wouldn't want to hear him anymore. The difference in the situations here, Daemon, is that one is government enforced and one is not. One is people deciding that they don't want to listen to him, and one is a governmental body stepping in to take special interest and punish him for it. One is not the same as the other. But you wanna talk about ending careers? Ok. If he's to be believed, he's lost something like 8 jobs since that video became viral. Do you not think that punishment is enough? Losing 8 jobs is pretty much the same as losing a career, since he's unable to even start a career, no? And yet you want to slap a fine on him that he might not be able to pay and therefore go to prison...well. I honestly can't think of the words to describe how little I think of that opinion, Daemon. People choosing not to associate him? That's fine. They have that right. Just as he has the right to make the joke in the first place. Unless a governmental body steps in and decides that no, he doesn't have the right.
Sorry, Daemon, but freedom of speech does not mean "Everything I like is ok, and everything I dislike isn't." And regardless of whether I agree with what he did or not, I value freedom of speech too much to be ok with the government telling us what is and isn't ok to joke about.

Also, really? Bullying? When did you become an expert on his relationship? For all you know, that could be their relationship, the kind where they try to prank each other. I'm not 100% confident, but last I checked, I believe that they're still together so the prank can't have upset her too much. Unless you're now going to upgrade "Bully" to "Abuser," in which case you need some evidence. Disliking his joke is one thing, but you better be damn certain before you start making accusations that he was trying to bully her rather than annoy her. Unless you have some proof, you should start walking back from making unsubstantiated claims on his character or motivations.

I'm not saying that an off-color joke would be the end of Western Democracy. I'm saying that the fact that there are people defending it are a symptom that Western Democracy is already falling.

People will always defend their bigoted shit. I'm just defending their right to say it.
Because here's the thing, western democracy isn't falling - you're being a bit hysterical about that; things are better in the west than they've ever been, statistically speaking - and Lands End isn't about to crumble into the sea. You know what's ACTUALLY going to make this stuff worse? By censoring ideas and jokes. Because then people will start to sympathise with those points of view. What you do is you let them spew their shit wherever they want to, and let people hear how stupid they sound when trying to talk to people who hold better opinions. You defeat bad opinions with better opinions, not by censoring shit and saying that they aren't allowed to say it, because then that helps them because they can say that they're being systemically victimised just for sharing their opinions and you don't want to give them that validation because that fundamentally doesn't help you. You're literally giving them ammunition to fire at you!

And you say that I'm inflating it to an absurd, but you're saying that at a time when a man who founded his entry into politics on racism, sexism and xenophobia is currently the President of a the United States of America. A man who called members of a hate group “some very fine people,” while calling black athletes 'Sons of Bitches'. Personally, I'd say that we're dangerously close to the Fourth Reich, but that's just my opinion.

TRUMPS AMUURICA!
Seriously, how does this link back to Trump? Like, at all? The USA isn't the UK. Also, I disagree with you entirely there; on the campaign trail, at least, Trump won because he was saying what people wanted to hear. Money in politics, unchecked immigration, the outsourcing of working class jobs, the corporatism that infects American politics, the fact that lobbyists hold all the power and nobody gives a shit about the people at the bottom. Also, the fact that Hillary Clinton was the embodiment of everything he was railing against, and had nothing but meaningless platitudes to her name. Trump didn't win, Clinton lost. And by claiming that the only reason people voted for him was racism and sexism and horseshit like that, you are just increasing the chances that he's gonna win a second goddamn time because you're incapable of admitting that Clinton had more to do with Trumps victory than Trump did himself.

So I ask you, knowing about the kind of climate that currently surrounds Western democracy at the moment, both in the US and Europe, do you really think that I'm the one being sensationalist here?

Yes.

[Vergil Tanner]

No, you know what, no...not stepping further into this. I'm aiding in derailing the thread and I already said I was out once before, so...I'll leave it at that.

If I offended anybody or upset anybody by coming across as too aggressive or insulting, I apologise. I get passionate about freedom of speech and whatnot, and that sometimes comes across as aggressive or condescending, which is never my intention. So I will (really) leave it at that. SO.


What else is in the news? I don't get a lot of it, being in China.

[gaggedLouise]

More weird news with dogs: somebody here in Sweden sent a dead newborn puppy in a mail package box.  The package was picked up and identified at the largest mail service hub in the country, and the police have now taken custody of the pup.

What *is* it with some people?

[Vergil Tanner]

The actual fuck? Why would you kill a puppy? And then mail it?! I mean...I can't even get my head around how horrific that is! D: Do they know who did it?