Man arrested after online rant against Liverpool and Hillsborough disaster victims

reply to post by Bugman82


Well there is no way that his arrest will prove anything about the residents of Liverpool, since by and large it is not the citizenry who command the police, or incite them to enforce the law. All it shows is that one loudmouthed idiot has been arrested for allowing his gob to run away with him.

To my mind there is no difference between his verbal behavior toward the people of Liverpool, and the outrageous behavior of the Nazis toward the Jews, or the KKK against African Americans. Oh theres no implicit VIOLENCE, but there IS hate, and hate must be crushed, gutted, thrown under a bus, terminated with unlimited prejudice, and have its components scattered before the four winds, and that must happen because there must never be another Reich. There must never be another hate based, and hate friendly government in Europe. It is vile enough that there are such governments else where on Earth, but never here.

This nation sacrificed an awful lot to defend not just itself, but all of Europe from being left in the hands of a buch of goose stepping, souless murderers. My grandfathers both fought that war, and they went to war for the right reasons, not just out of fear for themselves or thier families, but also to secure the freedom of all mankind from hate, and tyranny.

The sacrifice of thier sanity, and the lives of countless of thier fellow armsmen, is trodden into the muck everytime someone abuses the rights that we can only enjoy because of the efforts of those who fought Hitler. There would be no free speech what so ever, if that effort had not been made, and to see the fact that we HAVE the right to free speech, crapped on by ignorant fools such as the one referenced in the OP, frankly sickens me, and is an insult to every WW2 veteran, victim, survivor, and everything that issued from thier loins subsequently.

I veiw the comments made by the fool in question as an insult to every single person in this country, who has a relative who lived through, or died in, the second world war, because if THIS is the best we can do with the rights, that our forebares shed thier blood to defend and create, then we might as well all suck lead and die, because we bring no honour to our fallen this way. By allowing baseless and insulting rhetoric to be spewed by one person toward a whole demographic, we essentially tell those who made our lives POSSIBLE, that we value thier input, and thier sacrifice not one single bit.

I feel very passionately, that everything we do here in Britain, should be held against the simple measure, of wether or not it would please, meet with the approval of those who fought for us in our darkest hour, those who stood firm to protect the future, from a danger that lurks in our past. I feel confident in saying, that the prattlings of the ignorant cuss the article mentions, would not meet with that approval, and therefore, they do not meet with mine.

reply to post by TrueBrit


You can't legislate morality. It is the height of ignorance and naivete to believe you can. What's next TB? arresting people because they dislike you? Arresting people because they don't agree with the dominant political party? Perhaps you'd like some books burned as well?

I can't believe any thinking person would condone arresting someone for words, regardless of their contents.

I certainly don't condone what the man has done, but as a famous saying in America goes: I may not like what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Is there any difference in the way Republicans label the Democrats, or vice versa? Or the arguments between the Labour and Conservative parties? I'm sorry, but I've seen groups generalized in far worst manners than in the rant that proceeds from his mouth. Should we arrest people that label all Republicans / Conservative party followers evil? Should we imprison people for labeling Democrats / Labour party voters as godless? I belong to one of those groups, and I don't press charges when someone labels be a gay loving socialist (which has happened numerous times in my life). In fact I look forward to the debate to follow and the strong arguments that I can present.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by Bugman82

 

To my mind there is no difference between his verbal behavior toward the people of Liverpool, and the outrageous behavior of the Nazis toward the Jews, or the KKK against African Americans. Oh theres no implicit VIOLENCE, but there IS hate, and hate must be crushed, gutted, thrown under a bus, terminated with unlimited prejudice, and have its components scattered before the four winds, and that must happen because there must never be another Reich. There must never be another hate based, and hate friendly government in Europe. It is vile enough that there are such governments else where on Earth, but never here.

I think a lot of people are going to find you comparing that little rant to the behaviour of the Nazis towards the Jews or the KKK to African Americans as highly offensive.

Those are highly insensitive comparison to make, but as with everything I believe you have the right to make them.

I am slightly dubious as to whether you're being serious with those comparisons if I'm honest.

reply to post by optimus primal


Well, its nice to know that some people want to live in a world full of xenophobes and religiously prejudiced idiots, who have nothing better to do than insult people based on whichever particular hate focus they might personally enjoy. Thats very bloody reassuring. Thanks for reinforcing my confidence in my fellow man. And thank you also for reminding me that in this age of communication, of technology, that we still havent a bloody clue that there is a difference between having freedom of speech, and having the wit and fair handedness to use it in a responsible manner.

I had rather hoped we would have moved on from such outdated thinking by now. Obviously we have not.

reply to post by bates


It all comes from the same toxic well of filth. One gives birth to the other with alarming regularity. I dont need to support that argument because history does that perfectly well on its own, with no help from yours truely.

I'd like to strip away a layer of your argument for a minute - specifically, was this outburst really hate speech?

Hate is a complex thing and comes in a variety of forms. It can be experienced intensely, or chronically, or mistakenly, or any number of other ways. It can be felt towards people who deserve it, it can be felt towards people who don't deserve it, it can be felt towards people who might deserve it, it can be felt towards people who might not deserve it. Hate can accompany, be caused by or cause other emotions, such as anger, sadness, inadequacy, superiority and so on.

In order to correctly asses what we think should happen to this person (with specific regards to your thrown under a train/four corners comment) we first need to asses what kind of hate, if any, he was expressing. We then need to take that type of hate and rank it on a scale, on your personal scale. What is your personal tipping point, where do you say "that is wrong" and "that is fine"?

Bear in mind that everyone will have a different tipping point, and everyone will have a different definition of hate, and everyone will perceive certain messages in a different way.

Using your example of Hitler, let's talk about his hate of the Jews, I would perceive Hitler's hate to be one stemming from inadequacy, fear and desire. It was a chronic problem, not an intermittent one, nor a one time event, it was definitely a long standing issue.

Hitler hated the Jews because he felt emasculated by them, he believed they controlled his country, his family and him, this made him feel inadequate. He was afraid of what would happen if he didn't "take a stand" and afraid of looking inadequate to his peers. He had a desire to rid the world of the target of his hatred, and he used this desire to propel himself up the political ladder to a position where he could enact his plans.

Hitler's hate was born of ignorance and would have ended badly for someone, whether or not Hitler managed to become an important figure in his country. It was an objectively bad type of hate.

In this case, the person in the video appears (to me) to be upset, angry and confused. It seems like he has experienced an event that has ignited a one time hate of a certain group of people, who happened to belong to another group known as scousers.

The subject obviously used to be friends with the group, for several years it would appear, while working on his career. The group in question then undermined his career, which upset and angered him. He was confused as to why anyone would do such a thing. He didn't harbour these feelings for years or obsess over his object of hate, he just experienced it because something happened.

In his haze of hormones resulting from all these emotions, he made a silly video in which he shouts a lot and tries to make the people it's targeted at feel the same way he does by saying things he knows will push their buttons.

Basically what I'm saying is:
Hitler's hate = Dexter (serial killer)
This guy's hate = fight at a party with a long time friend

Now, would you still argue for such a violent punishment against this man for feeling betrayed and saying something silly?

reply to post by TrueBrit

To my mind there is no difference between his verbal behavior toward the people of Liverpool, and the outrageous behavior of the Nazis toward the Jews, or the KKK against African Americans. Oh theres no implicit VIOLENCE, but there IS hate, and hate must be crushed, gutted, thrown under a bus, terminated with unlimited prejudice, and have its components scattered before the four winds, and that must happen because there must never be another Reich. There must never be another hate based, and hate friendly government in Europe. It is vile enough that there are such governments else where on Earth, but never here.

Then your mind is messed up.

You compare some guy´s facebook rant to people committing genocide and lynchings? What's wrong with you?

"Oh there is no implicit violence...." That's the first fail of your analogy.

My grandfathers both fought that war,

They sure didn't fight for the twisted morals you are displaying right here, I can tell you that.

and hate must be crushed, gutted, thrown under a bus, terminated with unlimited prejudice, and have its components scattered before the four winds,

Are you not aware that the components can only be destroyed in the fires that cast them, on Mount Doom?

Sheesh.

Originally posted by Bugman82
reply to post by TrueBrit

 

Is there any difference in the way Republicans label the Democrats, or vice versa? Or the arguments between the Labour and Conservative parties? I'm sorry, but I've seen groups generalized in far worst manners than in the rant that proceeds from his mouth.

Does that make it ok then? I do not believe so. I believe that it is a terrible thing that all these people behave in such an undignified and unacceptable manner toward one another, especially since those groups have much more important concerns that they should be adressing, like the running of the nations in which they operate, and finding better ways to enable the people whose votes they are asking for, to live a full and decent life.

Should we arrest people that label all Republicans / Conservative party followers evil? Should we imprison people for labeling Democrats / Labour party voters as godless? I belong to one of those groups, and I don't press charges when someone labels be a gay loving socialist (which has happened numerous times in my life). In fact I look forward to the debate to follow and the strong arguments that I can present.

edit on 31-12-2012 by Bugman82 because: (no reason given)

And apathy abounds. People should treat eachother with respect. They should treat large groups of people, with respect, no matter thier political or religious, or racial background, or indeed, where in a nation they are from. If a person sees fit to do otherwise, and nothing is done to illuminate the wrongness of that deed, then pretty soon you just get people thinking they have a free scope to be as vile and vindicitive as they please. They bloody well DONT have that freedom, and they bloody well SHOULDNT have that freedom.

By all means use freedom of speech to prevent governments covering up thier sins. By all means use freedom of speech to bring your fellow human being some new information, to enlighten. But to use freedom of speech to hate, even a little bit, opens the door for the xenophobes and the bloody Black Shirts, and every other oppressive bunch of freedom hating tyrants to come in, set up camp, and commit acts of savagery in the name of thier hate. I cannot back down from the position, that hate in all its forms ought to be abolished, and those who partake in it, be justly outed and shamed before the nation, as one of those who would have bought it low in times past.

Originally posted by Bugman82
reply to post by TrueBrit

 

Is there any difference in the way Republicans label the Democrats, or vice versa? Or the arguments between the Labour and Conservative parties? I'm sorry, but I've seen groups generalized in far worst manners than in the rant that proceeds from his mouth. Should we arrest people that label all Republicans / Conservative party followers evil? Should we imprison people for labeling Democrats / Labour party voters as godless? I belong to one of those groups, and I don't press charges when someone labels be a gay loving socialist (which has happened numerous times in my life). In fact I look forward to the debate to follow and the strong arguments that I can present.

edit on 31-12-2012 by Bugman82 because: (no reason given)

Wow, missing the point big time:

Democrats, republicans, labour, Tory, Christian, Muslim etc are all based on beliefs they are not targetted at individuals.

Liverpudlians, Blacks, Chinese, gay etc are targetted at individuals.

THATS THE DIFFERENCE. If you are having difficulty ask yourself this:

Can a labour supporter change - YES
Can a Black person change colour - NO

And please don't give me the "a liverpudlian can move" crappy argument. As you well know people have an affinity to wherever they were born/brought up and that stays with them for life.

To hate someone for who they are born as is wrong.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Again, you can't legislate morality.

Thankfully I still live in a country where the contents of one's words are not subject to the whims of the government.

Frankly I extremely dislike racists, bigots, and morons. When they speak I don't want to hear it, you know what I don't do? I don't call for their arrest and incarceration. I act like a grown man and turn the channel and/or walk away.

reply to post by bates

I am of English descent and still have family in Cornwall and elsewhere around the British Isles. Our enemies, the Control Freaks that want to own and control the world want to turn us into England and it makes me sick to my stomach.

reply to post by TrueBrit

They bloody well DONT have that freedom, and they bloody well SHOULDNT have that freedom. By all means use freedom of speech to prevent governments covering up thier sins. By all means use freedom of speech to bring your fellow human being some new information, to enlighten. But to use freedom of speech to hate, even a little bit, opens the door for the xenophobes and the bloody Black Shirts, and every other oppressive bunch of freedom hating tyrants to come in, set up camp, and commit acts of savagery in the name of thier hate. I cannot back down from the position, that hate in all its forms ought to be abolished, and those who partake in it, be justly outed and shamed before the nation, as one of those who would have bought it low in times past.

Slippery slope you are on there.

You sound a bit oppressive yourself.

reply to post by yorkshirelad


I had begun to think I was living in bizzaro world for a moment. Thank you for understanding the point I was trying to make.

reply to post by optimus primal


And I am ashamed to be a part of the human race, bearing in mind its unwillingness to heal itself by virtue, and enforcement of good conduct, and punishment of poor conduct. It is apathy such as that expressed by your good self, that feeds the issues dealt with by this thread and the article which spawned it. Nothing will change, none of these things you dislike, will ever EVER change, unless people who know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, are prepared to actually pin thier colours to the mast and PREVENT evil from taking root.

If the world was as lax in that respect as you would have me believe the USA is, Christ help the lot of us.

reply to post by TrueBrit

And I am ashamed to be a part of the human race,

Remove yourself from the gene pool then, Shakespeare.

terminated with unlimited prejudice

That's what the free world needs, unlimited prejudice.

reply to post by RogueMcChronic


The free world does not exist, while hate can still take root in it. Your little Shakespeare jibe there, its a case in point. You cannot attack the position properly, so you reference William Shakespeare, because you hate the fact that when people behave poorly to one another, something HAS to be done about it, or else morality itself crumbles. Rather than accept the point, you would rather point to Shakespeare as if that makes a difference. Pathetic.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Please define hate.

Edit: also, tell me why I should accept your definition.

reply to post by TrueBrit


I like how you sidestepped the point.

Is unlimited prejudice ever a good thing for the world, free world or not?

I don't think so buddy.

The Shakespeare reference is to the fact that you are trying to sell your broken rubbish with literary language.

You are ranting about Nazis and hate, and how the world needs saving, all because some guy's FB rant offended you.

Your reaction is way out of proportion, you are the pathetic one.

I think the world would be a better place if people would just let the guy have his rant, ignore it and move on.

Instead your fascist mind feels the need to go after this guy with "unlimited prejudice", fascism in the name of eradicating hate, over the freedom of speech.

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by TrueBrit

 

Please define hate.

Edit: also, tell me why I should accept your definition.

edit on 31-12-2012 by Dispo because: (no reason given)

Hate: A severe emotional dislike, directed at individuals, groups, objects, and ideas. Often causes feelings of anger toward the focus of that intense emotional dislike. An emotional state that causes people to go against the Golden Rule, that being, treat your neighbor as you would wish to be treated yourself.

If you cannot accept a definition of hate, then there can be only two reasons for that. One, an inability to process concepts, or an unwillingness to do so on this occasion, because to do so would reduce the stability of your position. Pick one.