A victory for freedom of speech.... and sanity

[Deleted member 26533]

Sigh what? These are stats collected from that community. Are you just dismissing what they are telling us?

No mate, I've actually explained my point. If you don't want to look at the various other variables that could influence the incidences of self harm and simply suggest that the one you want to believe is true, then it's pointless. It's called bad science.

 

[Hep]

Why is that harassment?

Who are you harassing there?

It's up to other people if they go to your twitter account and view what you have posted.

It's the same as any public medium.

Shall we put in on TV and tell people to switch off, or print it in the paper and tell people not to read, or put it on advertising boards and tell people not to look.

What he said wouldn't be acceptable in the workplace, so why here? Keyboard warriors hiding.

No mate, I've actually explained my point. If you don't want to look at the various other variables that could influence the incidences of self harm and simply suggest that the one you want to believe is true, then it's pointless. It's called bad science.

I've already said there are other factors, but social acceptance is a key one. 83% have experienced verbal abuse, 35% have been physically assaulted. Surely you can see that this is a significant factor in suicidal thoughts.

Let's turn it around. if suddenly society was completely accepting and supportive, do you think the suicide rate would drop?

 

[Aituk7]

It's the same as any public medium.

Shall we put in on TV and tell people to switch off, or print it in the paper and tell people not to read, or put it on advertising boards and tell people not to look.

What he said wouldn't be acceptable in the workplace, so why here? Keyboard warriors hiding.

I don't see why not, it's an expression of opinion.

How many opinion would you ban?

I mean we could ban all opinions and live in a really tolerant society if you'd like?

2 oxymorons in the sentence above.... don't see them very often

 

[Hep]

I don't see why not, it's an expression of opinion.

How many opinion would you ban?

I mean we could ban all opinions and live in a really tolerant society if you'd like?

2 oxymorons in the sentence above.... don't see them very often

Just the opinions that discriminate against the protected attributes as defined in law today.

• race
• colour
• sex
• sexual orientation
• age
• physical or mental disability
• marital status
• family or carer's responsibilities
• pregnancy
• religion
• political opinion
• national extraction
• social origin.

That's the standard we've set. Just as we no longer allow racist jokes on TV or racist chanting at football matches.

I'm all for reasoned respectful debate on any of those but people just posting stuff which is designed to upset or hurt others isn't acceptable. We don't allow it in the workplace or schools, so why should it be ok elsewhere.

 

[Horatio Pugwash]

I don’t see why the selfish need to be able to be freely racist trumps the need for society to be diverse and inclusive.

It may be better for the racists to be able to say that. We can engage them in debate and prove them wrong. Rather than drive that filth underground where they can only discuss it with other like minded morons.

 

[Deleted member 26533]

I've already said there are other factors, but social acceptance is a key one. 83% have experienced verbal abuse, 35% have been physically assaulted. Surely you can see that this is a significant factor in suicidal thoughts.

Let's turn it around. if suddenly society was completely accepting and supportive, do you think the suicide rate would drop?

I'd say so, to an extent. Although I wouldn't expect it to drop proportionally because I think there's a lot more influencing.

As I say, other groups of minority populous have historically been discriminated against a lot more, with lower instances of self harm. It suggests that there's other significant driving factors.

Do you think that we are seeing confused people with mental health issues gravitating towards this community? I think there's a lot of issues we aren't going to really see solid data on for a while. But I simply don't accept that they're so high mostly due to perceived societal discrimination.

 

[Hep]

I'd say so, to an extent. Although I wouldn't expect it to drop proportionally because I think there's a lot more influencing.

As I say, other groups of minority populous have historically been discriminated against a lot more, with lower instances of self harm. It suggests that there's other significant driving factors.

Do you think that we are seeing confused people with mental health issues gravitating towards this community? I think there's a lot of issues we aren't going to really see solid data on for a while. But I simply don't accept that they're so high mostly due to perceived societal discrimination.

It's a very complex issue and I agree with what you say to a degree, but as part of the rest of society, we have a choice. Either offer support and tolerance with a sensible debate around complex issues, or intolerance, ignorance and piss-taking.

Why anyone feels the need to do the latter is beyond me.

How would they feel if someone in their family decided to come out as trans and was very vulnerable about it - would they continue the piss-taking?

 

[Deleted member 26533]

It's a very complex issue and I agree with what you say to a degree, but as part of the rest of society, we have a choice. Either offer support and tolerance with a sensible debate around complex issues, or intolerance, ignorance and piss-taking.

Why anyone feels the need to do the latter is beyond me.

How would they feel if someone in their family decided to come out as trans and was very vulnerable about it - would they continue the piss-taking?

In order to offer the best counselling and support to trans people, the issue needs to be studied and debated with 'feelings' off the table, otherwise you can't accurately dismiss or understand the impact of each variable on said people.

I agree, people shouldn't just take the piss. But that's the same as anything in my book. I wouldn't pass anybody in the street and take the piss out of them for being gay, trans, black or whatever else.

 

[Curlyteeth]

I'd say so, to an extent. Although I wouldn't expect it to drop proportionally because I think there's a lot more influencing.

As I say, other groups of minority populous have historically been discriminated against a lot more, with lower instances of self harm. It suggests that there's other significant driving factors.

Do you think that we are seeing confused people with mental health issues gravitating towards this community? I think there's a lot of issues we aren't going to really see solid data on for a while. But I simply don't accept that they're so high mostly due to perceived societal discrimination.

I think the transgender case is a bit more complicated than some other minorities. They're often struggling with the idea of what they are. They may have been fighting the feelings they've had for years. Imagine how confusing and mentally challenging that would be. To alter that you need to make a massive change that will impact your daily life. It's probably terrifying. It's not a surprise baring this in mind that there are higher incidences of mental problems. Then chuck on top of that the societal impacts ie the abuse and prejudices that all minorities can suffer. Some other minorities ie gay have some similar challenges but I think for transgender people it's particularly difficult. I'm not saying they're special but it is a very complex situation for them

 

[soapster]

I dont doubt that police have a very difficult time. Just that somewhere down the line the system has gone wrong if the police go to a persons place of work to check there thinking on such matters.

I agree
I suspect the problem is at the top, PCC, ACPO, CC and or pressure groups / depts. who dictate police policy. could be the guidance re home office crime recording (each force has type of department, to ensure incidents / complaints are recorded correctly ?)

 

[Deleted member 26533]

I think the transgender case is a bit more complicated than some other minorities. They're often struggling with the idea of what they are. They may have been fighting the feelings they've had for years. Imagine how confusing and mentally challenging that would be. To alter that you need to make a massive change that will impact your daily life. It's probably terrifying. It's not a surprise baring this in mind that there are higher incidences of mental problems. Then chuck on top of that the societal impacts ie the abuse and prejudices that all minorities can suffer. Some other minorities ie gay have some similar challenges but I think for transgender people it's particularly difficult. I'm not saying they're special but it is a very complex situation for them

It is, but are the trends similar with gay/bisexual groups?

It is complex, but I think every variables needs to be explored. Some of them I appreciate will probably look like they undermine trans people.

 

[joemcdokes]

Absolute joke, here in his own words he describes what happened.

Interesting that, it’s quite a difficult thing on how to react around the subject,
especially from a work perspective.

It makes the whole thing sort of a taboo issue which is sad for those involved, including myself.

 

[squashjoe]

I don’t see why the selfish need to be able to be freely racist trumps the need for society to be diverse and inclusive.

Diverse and inclusive another made up leftyism.

 

[joemcdokes]

Likewise it’s worrying how so many people want bigots to have a platform.

Maybes this forum isn’t for you.

 

[CEF]

But a man who transgendered to a woman is a woman, not a man. Gender is not the same as sex.

Sex is the biological facts you were born with.

Gender is what society places on top of that. e.g. Women wear skirts and makeup.

So it's not ok to call a man who has transgendered to a woman, a man. No more than it's ok to call an SAFC supporter a mag.

If a Newcastle supporter decides to support Sunderland, and someone calls them a Mag, I don't think the police should be able to take them away.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

So you think the idea that black people are inferior should be “up for discourse”?

Of course I'm a big massive racist. That is exactly what I think.
My actual answer is that no topic should be censored. If people wish to engage in a discussion about an issue then what is the problem?

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

It would seem you need to grasp a better definition of what freedom of speech is.
May I point you to the first amendment of the US constitution

It's an incredibly slippery slope.... and doesn't work either.

It's been proven time and time again, the best way to get people to change their minds on something is to challenge them on it, not censorship

I saw an interview with a lady who used to be a member of the Westboro Baptist Church (the "God Hates Fags" lot). She used to make hateful posts on Twitter while she was still a member of the church, people would abuse her back etc. However, a few people made an effort to politely debate her points and basically tear them apart to the extent where it made her completely re-evaluate her beliefs and she ended up leaving the church.

This was a few years ago, if Twitter's current "hate speech" policies were in effect then this lady would have been banned immediately, the discourse that changed her opinions would not have taken place and she would probably still be at the church now. Makes you think.

IMO anyone who advocates for censorship and limits on freedom of speech either a) can't see the wood for the trees or b) are scared of certain opinions as they know they can't counter them with facts and reason. "When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say."

 

[Hep]

If a Newcastle supporter decides to support Sunderland, and someone calls them a Mag, I don't think the police should be able to take them away.

Nobody got taken away, just advised to not be offensive on twitter.

Of course I'm a big massive racist. That is exactly what I think.
My actual answer is that no topic should be censored. If people wish to engage in a discussion about an issue then what is the problem?

discussion about an issue is fine, is there an issue with people just being trans-gender.

Talk about toilet access and other logistical issues by all means, but to have a go for the sake of it, is not discussion.

I saw an interview with a lady who used to be a member of the Westboro Baptist Church (the "God Hates Fags" lot). She used to make hateful posts on Twitter while she was still a member of the church, people would abuse her back etc. However, a few people made an effort to politely debate her points and basically tear them apart to the extent where it made her completely re-evaluate her beliefs and she ended up leaving the church.

This was a few years ago, if Twitter's current "hate speech" policies were in effect then this lady would have been banned immediately, the discourse that changed her opinions would not have taken place and she would probably still be at the church now. Makes you think.

IMO anyone who advocates for censorship and limits on freedom of speech either a) can't see the wood for the trees or b) are scared of certain opinions as they know they can't counter them with facts and reason. "When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say."

Or you're protecting vulnerable people from what they might say. A debate is not the same as abuse. It's bullying and how many people on here would stand idly by if their kids were being verbally bullied? - would you say 'ah, but that's free speech'

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

Nobody got taken away, just advised to not be offensive on twitter.

discussion about an issue is fine, is there an issue with people just being trans-gender.

Talk about toilet access and other logistical issues by all means, but to have a go for the sake of it, is not discussion.

Or you're protecting vulnerable people from what they might say. A debate is not the same as abuse. It's bullying and how many people on here would stand idly by if their kids were being verbally bullied? - would you say 'ah, but that's free speech'

Depends how you define "bullying". This poem the police officer shared wasn't aimed at any particular individual as far as I know. There's a difference between saying "transgenderism is a mental illness" and "Transgender Person A is mentally ill". You may be on dodgy ground with the latter but the former is an example of an opinion that should never be shut down IMO.

 

[Hep]

Depends how you define "bullying". This poem the police officer shared wasn't aimed at any particular individual as far as I know. There's a difference between saying "transgenderism is a mental illness" and "Transgender Person A is mentally ill". You may be on dodgy ground with the latter but the former is an example of an opinion that should never be shut down IMO.

There is a fine line, Unless your debating in a respectful way, it’s not ok to just spout abuse. Your example is gray to be fair unless it’s backed by some facts.the tweet was just abusive, nothing being debated, it was just designed to cause offence.