March 31, 2016

"I cannot understand why I was detained, my flat trashed, my passport seized and two PCs, two tablets and my phone taken."

"I was denied a shave, shower, food. I was stripped of any dignity to appear in court without looking like a disheveled hobo that I am not."

Said a London man who had tweeted: "I confronted a Muslim women (sic) in Croydon yesterday. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said ‘nothing to do with me’. A mealy mouthed reply."

81 comments:

Qwinn said...

Yet Christians are routinely expected to answer for things (quite a few of them completely made up) that happened 600+ years ago. By Obama, no less. Funny, that.

California Snow said...

Goes to show that Great Britain should now only be referred to as Britain from now on for great it is not.

Aaron Csicseri said...

That will teach him to buck burgeoning societal norms!That being said, starting a conversation like this is not exactly polite or effective.

mccullough said...

The Brits gave away their empire with both hands after WW2. Not our job to save them from themselves. They brought Rotherham on themselves.

B said...

I love that cops can arrest you and trash your place, then nothing will come of it. But the message is already sent, "we have the power and authority to make your life miserable."

n.n said...

Based on their response, it seems that the question should have been directed to the authorities.

Anyway, it's a pro-choice, pro-choice, pro-choice, pro-choice world, so principles cannot be considered good predictors of orientation, behavior, or allegiance.

Holding My Nose said...

Apparently the London cops just want to prevent the next (or is it first?) anti-Islamist perpetrated terror attack in Blighty.

Eustace Chilke said...

The bill of rights has always seemed prescient to me. Now more than ever. The people trimming it back a slice at a time avoid all out forceful resistance only through incrementalism. There's a tipping point where gradual encroachment turns to a landslide. We can back them up now or turn into Britain or Canada. I could almost hope that the bastards are over confident and try to take it all at once. If they stick with incremental destruction they're a lot more likely to hold what they've taken.

bbkingfish said...

They should have arrested him for admitting to criminal stupidity.

Nyamujal said...

"I was denied a shave, shower, food. I was stripped of any dignity to appear in court without looking like a disheveled hobo that I am not."
Karma is a bitch, boy.

Brando said...

Sometimes it seems we are in a black hole of stupidity. The guy publicly announces that he said something very dumb to a Muslim woman (or I guess he assumed she was Muslim?)--ok, bad enough. Then the authorities decide to go after him for this? What law did he break? If we're going to arrest people every time they tweet something stupid we're going to need a lot more cops.

Gahrie said...

You're a subject, not a citizen.

Sebastian said...

Whaddayamean, "cannot understand," bro?

pst314 said...

It's no longer Britain. It's Airstrip One.

The Cracker Emcee said...

It doesn't get much more fascistic than this. Interesting that the Lefties here are totally cool with it.

Hyphenated American said...

I wonder if the police will now trash her apartment....

http://www.infowars.com/black-student-assaults-white-hippy-for-appropriating-dreadlocks/

You say "it's a different country", but if liberals agree with what happened in Britain, won't they demand same happen in USA?

And how about all those liberal protestors? How about BLM thugs?

Fernandinande said...

"Sadly, asset forfeiture has become so widespread that law enforcement agencies now use it to take more property than all the burglars in the entire United States. Something is obviously rotten in the legal system when cops steal more property than this large subset of actual robbers."

Hyphenated American said...

"It doesn't get much more fascistic than this. Interesting that the Lefties here are totally cool with it"

They are cool with this until the police starts doing it to them.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Yes you can. You can understand it. It's the law. THE LAW.
You intentionally wrote a tweet. Some members of law enforcement in your country decided that tweet violated a law. They arrested you, treated you unkindly, trashed your place and took some of your shit...because that's their job.
Now sure, it turns out later that some higher-ups said maybe your tweet didn't actually break the law, or maybe it wasn't such a big crime that it was worth going through the motions of actually prosecuting you for it, yeah.
But you understand why this happened to you. We all understand. Hell, making everyone understand is probably most of the reason it happened in the first place.

Everyone loves the LAW.

Walter S. said...

"The guy publicly announces that he said something very dumb to a Muslim woman..."

He didn't give the context of the encounter. If they were in a group that was already discussing hard political or religious issues, such a confrontation might be sensible. Maybe the tweet was dumb, but that's pretty much the norm for tweets.

hawkeyedjb said...

You insulted a Muslim. While not an Offical Crime, this is an Unofficial Crime. So, you will be made to pay, "pour encourager les autres."

In Britain, the law does not exist to protect citizens. It exists to keep them in line.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Far from being "mealy mouthed," the response "nothing to do with me" sounds fully plausible.

HoodlumDoodlum said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

"Yet Christians are routinely expected to answer for things (quite a few of them completely made up) that happened 600+ years ago. By Obama, no less. Funny, that."

What "things" might those be?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

hawkeyedjb said...
You insulted a Muslim. While not an Offical Crime, this is an Unofficial Crime


Wrong. It is an official crime. The Public Order Act criminalizes expressions of religious or racial hatred, and (separately) malicious communication (including racial and religious "attacks") is criminal.

Oh, people suddenly don't respect the law? Too damn bad, it's the law!
These assholes made it illegal to express certain beliefs, ideas, or opinions. They were happy to do it, and praised themselves for their broad-mindedness, empathy, and compassion.

I'm waking up to it (slowly, I admit), but this is what people want. The news story is a post here because it's interesting to Prof. A, and it's a news story at all because it's shocking to some people. But note, only SOME people. Who do you think passed these laws? Who do you think enforces them (reads tweets, takes complaints, makes arrests, goes through with prosecutions)? There is an entire apparatus--an institution--devoted to passing, upholding, and enforcing these types of law. The people who are for this kind of thing aren't ashamed! They're proud of this work, and the Left wants more of it, there and here.

This is what lots of people want. The "lots" might mean a majority, or maybe just a majority of the voting public, but enough that this kind of thing is 100% legal. Read the law!

It's not the law in America yet, of course. But where they've been able to the Left has enforced exactly this kind of rule on anyone they can. Here's an example of that kind of thinking in action today: Powerline: American U Law Faculty Disgrace Themselves Look at the "reasoning" used by those faculty members--it's exactly the same reasoning that got this guy arrested in Britain. You define expression of an idea you don't like as harmful and then treat that harm as criminal. Easy. You get to do it while calling everyone else a racist/sexist/homophobe/bigot, of course, and getting APPLAUDED for your own empathy and compassion.

You fuckers who've helped and supported the Left have brought us to this point. It's the LAW! Why the hell would anyone respect the 1st Amendment protections now--remember that "hate speech is not free speech" so your alleged "right" to free speech doesn't save you. You've wiped your ass with the Constitution in the name of your superior empathy for the oppressed, and now there's nothing stopping the passage and enforcement of laws to repress and punish any expression of ideas you dislike. You cheer as mobs shut down speech you label harmful and cheer when people you name bigots are targets of law enforcement action.

The Left wrote the law. It's the law now and there aren't enough people who oppose it to do anything about it. What am I supposed to be upset about? He was treated unfairly according to a standard I tried to support (free speech)? I lost! The Left won.

Robert Cook said...

"It doesn't get much more fascistic than this. Interesting that the Lefties here are totally cool with it."

Oh? Who are these "lefties" and where have they they expressed being "totally cool with it?"

buwaya said...

"Oh? Who are these "lefties" and where have they they expressed being "totally cool with it?"

British ones, apparently, based on the last few years opinions in the Guardian.
It is worth reading that, just to understand where the other side is.
And, if one has been paying attention, much the same thing has been going on up north in Canada, where there have been prominent prosecutions by the state, of opinions expressed in the press and online, of Mark Steyn among others.

Robert Cook said...

"Sadly, asset forfeiture has become so widespread that law enforcement agencies now use it to take more property than all the burglars in the entire United States."

Not only that, they write expected asset forfeiture proceeds into their annual budgets. They must seize sufficient assets as necessary to to meet their budgets. It's a shocking violation of the constitution that seems to arouse little notice, much less outrage or resistance.

Nyamujal said...

@Robert Cook
John Oliver did a great segment about asset forfeiture on his show. It made the rounds for a while but then people lost interest. People have very short attention spans... Oh look, a bird on Bernie's podium!

wholelottasplainin' said...

Robert Cook said...
"Yet Christians are routinely expected to answer for things (quite a few of them completely made up) that happened 600+ years ago. By Obama, no less. Funny, that."

What "things" might those be?
**********

Try the Crusades and the Inquisition. Here's your Dear Leader himself saying so:

"And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ."

IOW, So what if here and now Islamists are engaged in brutal jihad --- you guys did the same, centuries ago".

QED

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/what-did-obama-really-say-about-the-crusades/385471/

Robert Cook said...

No one is expecting Christians to answer for anything; the point it to add historical context and perspective, to acknowledge that the savage infliction of brutal violence on others is not the special province of any one group or religion, and that to single out the Muslims as if they are uniquely cruel or barbaric reflects bias and selective perception.

Heck, we have done more violence in the Middle East than ISIS has, and our good allies, the Saudis, carry out mass executions as spectator events, with beheading as the method of dispatch.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Absolutely infuriating. I don't know why Brits put up with it.

Fred Drinkwater said...

A friend of my father's, who was senior at the UK equivalent of NASA back in the 70's, bailed out of the UK and went to France around 1990. I remember the conversations back then, where he bemoaned the coming collapse of UK society. His son married a French woman and they raised their family in France. I should get back in touch and see what he thinks of their choices now.

"The Crusades and The Inquisition". Barf. Folks who bring them up as horrible examples of how Christians behaved usually know nothing about what actually happened and how many people were affected. I tell them to do some homework and get back to me. I also point them to the mass drowning at Nantes after the French Revolution, just to suggest that they need some perspective.

Jonathan Graehl said...

I find Hoodlum's realism soothing. He's further along the Stages of Grief than most of us.

LarsPorsena said...

Wow! It's almost as bad as being on a US university campus.

Jonathan Graehl said...

The failure of Serious Good Christians (Cruz) and secular anti-left (Trump) to make common cause has been extremely disappointing. (Trump naturally has plenty of really religious supporters and some real spiritual convictions - more than Cruz, probably; I'm simplifying).

James Pawlak said...

IN RE JIHADII CAEDITE EOS NEVIT ENIM DOMINUS QUI SUNT ELUS---Even in "Londonistan"

SGT Ted said...

"Karma is a bitch, boy."

So, you think someone deserves that from the Police for being rude to someone?

I had no idea you were a totalitarian.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Consider, Jonathan Graehl, that there might just not be that many of the two groups you identify. Maybe there aren't that many of them! It's almost certainly true that neither group is growing now (esp. not in relative terms). What if there just aren't too many of them around anymore?

Secular anti-Left? Who? Non-religious moderates? They're not going to speak up in any meaningful way, not when speaking up means being called racist or anti-gay. The religious? they've either been marginlized or co-opted, and there aren't enough of them that are anti-Left to matter anymore. One of the stupider ideas the GOP had (and I know--that's a long list) was that the millions of Latinos they were going to import would be stalwart anti-Leftists on account of their strong Catholicism...but of course it turns out that not only was that Catholicism not so strong but Catholicism itself was no guarantee of anti-Leftism.

So, look around. Who is opposing the Left? Worse, consider who is effectively opposing the Left (making actual progress)? I keep reading that culture drives politics, and in terms of culture the Left is all there is, baby.

buwaya said...

"No one is expecting Christians to answer for anything"

Yes they are. There is a vicious, unrelenting and overwhelming assault on Christians the world over. The propaganda is ubiquitous. The hate is extreme. The overlap with Islamic anti-Christian activism is nearly complete. For the secular drivers of culture, Christians can do no right and Muslims can do no wrong.

Anglelyne said...

HoodlumDoodlum: ...in terms of culture the Left is all there is, baby.

Righteous rants, bro.

It's a commonplace in certain branches of the "alt-right" that the right caved to the left a long time ago. That the left has been so successful in memory-holing the past and imposing "presentism" that a lot of "conservatives" can't even see this.

Char Char Binks said...

British law doesn't recognize free speech rights.

DanTheMan said...

If he "can't understand", he should ask these guys. They know how to advocate for murder and get police *protection*.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/~pdeh/protest_muslims_intolerant_clip_mrez1.html

>>British law doesn't recognize free speech rights.

Of course it does. Again, refer to the picture. It's impossible to deny that these people have free speech rights.

n.n said...

Twitter crimes.

Nyamujal said...

@SGT Ted, No, to be honest I don't. That was my just my knee-jerk, visceral reaction to his assholery.

Anglelyne said...

Nyamujal: @SGT Ted, No, to be honest I don't. That was my just my knee-jerk, visceral reaction to his assholery.

If your "visceral reaction" is to the level of assholery displayed by this London man, rather than to the Stasi-level bullshit perpetrated against him by the state, I'd say Sgt Ted has you pegged.

Rhythm and Balls said...

For the record I am totally UNCOOL with it and cannot have any respect for a country that so brazenly disrespects such an obvious and natural right as the right to speak freely, and for the purpose of protecting some non-existent right to not have hurt feelings.

The ordinance they thought they could charge him with violating was "racial hatred". The U.K. is not a country; it's a kindergarten.

Rhythm and Balls said...

...the point it to add historical context and perspective, to acknowledge that the savage infliction of brutal violence on others is not the special province of any one group or religion, and that to single out the Muslims as if they are uniquely cruel or barbaric reflects bias and selective perception.

They are uniquely culturally backward, as far as global standards in 2016 go.

They are uniquely at least 600 years of historical development behind the cultural juggernaut that is Western civilization.

You don't understand. People don't seek to oppress Muslims. They've generally never given them a second thought, actually - as far as conspicuous identities go.

It was Islam that came along and figured that it had to somehow claim for itself a superiority to every previous revelation - with special consideration for how to express its superiority to two of them in particular. And they've regularly since then had trouble grappling with how one comes to terms with their alleged superiority to cultures that seem to remain, in virtually every other way that ordinary people can observe, superior to THEM.

It drives them nuts. But then, we're not the ones perpetuating their psychological complex. It's their scripture and teachings that set this up for them.

Maybe they should stop.

Moneyrunner said...

“to acknowledge that the savage infliction of brutal violence on others is not the special province of any one group or religion, and that to single out the Muslims as if they are uniquely cruel or barbaric reflects bias and selective perception.”

I guess that leaves Hitler and the Nazi off the hook Robert. After all, they were not the first to exterminate their enemies. To single out the Nazis as if they are uniquely cruel or barbaric reflects bias and selective perception. Hell, they were not even the first to kill them by starving them. Stalin did worse to the Kulaks. Vald the Impaler committed mass murder by impalement, not something the Nazis were accused of. To single out the Nazis as if they are uniquely cruel or barbaric reflects bias and selective perception . And of course there’s slavery which has existed since time immemorial so using your standards, American slavery was no big thing. To single out the slave-owners as if they are uniquely cruel or barbaric reflects bias and selective perception . Discrimination by race is virtually universal so discrimination is not the especial province of one group or religion. To single southern segregation as if it was uniquely cruel or barbaric reflects bias and selective perception. Hey, I like this game!

Nyamujal said...

@Anglelyne, I'm sure you haven't flipped someone off, or wished worse in a moment of anger. I bet I could go through the comment archives on this site and find several examples of you and people commenting on how victims of police violence somehow deserved it (especially black victims because they were "thuggish" ). The difference is that despite how I feel, I can take a step back admit my mistake. I've campaigned and voted against the Stasi level bullshit you're talking about. Perhaps you've done the same. At least I hope you have.

The Cracker Emcee said...

""It doesn't get much more fascistic than this. Interesting that the Lefties here are totally cool with it."

Oh? Who are these "lefties" and where have they they expressed being "totally cool with it?""

Nyamajul and bbkingfish sound pretty pleased with what was done to this guy and I imagine you could rationalize it quite comfortably, Cookie.

JamesB.BKK said...

It's not about you sir. It's about the others looking on. An Asian expression sums it up nicely, "Kill chicken, show monkey."

JamesB.BKK said...

@Fernandinande: It is just a more blatant form of theft, not gussied up with "social compact" mythology or under pretense of doing "services" or making "investments" for the good of the people. Some Spooner here? "The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber...Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you."

JamesB.BKK said...

@Robert Cook: I understand this request is unlikely to bear fruit, but would you please stop writing "we" when you describe acts of the United States Government?

Paco Wové said...

"The difference is that despite how I feel, I can take a step back admit my mistake"

Some of us certainly do have mighty high opinions of ourselves.

JamesB.BKK said...

Here is a piece from Murray Rothbard stating his view as to where the right-wing went wrong and who did it. Embedded .pdf of magazine article here: https://mises.org/library/murray-rothbard-soars-bill-buckley-evaporates

Paco Wové said...

"I've campaigned and voted against the Stasi level bullshit you're talking about"

So you say. But all we have to go on is your behavior here, you passive-aggressive lover of Stasi tactics (when directed against people you don't like).

Anglelyne said...

Nyamujal: @Anglelyne, I'm sure you haven't flipped someone off, or wished worse in a moment of anger.

I can honestly say I have never experienced the slightest frisson of schadenfreude at seeing someone arrested for saying something. Yeah, enjoying seeing an innocent (yes, innocent, by any civilized standards) ground up by the law is just like flipping them off.

I bet I could go through the comment archives on this site and find several examples of you...

Knock yourself out.

...and people commenting on how victims of police violence somehow deserved it (especially black victims because they were "thuggish").

I'm sure you can find examples of people not showing sympathy for thugs, and I'm sure it didn't cost you much effort to persuade yourself that making annoying comments to strangers is tantamount to thuggishness. (Excuse me, "thuggishness". What is "thuggishness" as opposed to thuggishness? Don't weasel-word and try to play the race card at the same time, please.)

The difference is that despite how I feel, I can take a step back admit my mistake.

Not interested in your (morally superior) difference from the imagined inner states of hypothetical posters.

The pertinent difference here is that your emotional response to that London man's speech isn't like some other people's emotional response, and that difference causes them to look askance at you.

Nobody's made a "mistake" here, why are you even couching this exchange in those terms? If you have a strong angry response to what that man said and felt spiteful glee at his being dicked around by the law, then you have a strong angry response to what that man said and felt spiteful glee at his being dicked around by the law, whatever feelings of remorse followed.

Nyamujal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nyamujal said...

@Anglelyne, well said. I've gleaned from some of your posts that you support Trump. What do you make of protestors getting sucker punched out pushed around at his rallies? How did you feel when you saw that protestor getting punched in NC?

MayBee said...

In Britain, one of their sport stars (Rugby? Soccer? I forget) was arrested for allegedly saying something racist on the field. Arrested. Also, during the Olympics one of their star divers put in a less than stellar performance, and a few people tweeted about his dead dad. And those people, too, were arrested.

Not having a first amendment and having hate speech laws are a big deal.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Nyamujal, what you said ('karma') is revolting. It's like showing up to gloat at victims of (real) police brutality. I wish I *did* believe in karma.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Okay, I see you backed off. Fine. My karma-wish forgives you. Yes, we all at times express unconsidered disgust.

Gahrie said...

to single out the Muslims as if they are uniquely cruel or barbaric reflects bias and selective perception.

I agree with this.

However....

The reason to single out Muslims is not that they are uniquely cruel or barbaric, but rather it is because Islam demands that they behave in a cruel and barbaric manner. To criticize, or propose changing and/or moderating these demands is punishable by death. Choosing to leave Islam is punishable by death.

JamesB.BKK said...

"@Anglelyne, well said. I've gleaned from some of your posts that you support Trump. What do you make of protestors getting sucker punched out pushed around at his rallies? How did you feel when you saw that protestor getting punched in NC?"

Any trouble distinguishing private action and police action? Passion and calculation? Provocation and state suppression?

Rusty said...

Whew. For a minute there It looked like another "John Doe" investigation.

TheThinMan said...

The law that was cited was "racial hatred"? Muslims aren't a race. And hate is an emotion. How can an emotion be against the law? Can we arrest people for envy while we're at it?

Nyamujal said...

The general theme of this comment thread is that liberals pose a threat to free speech. I just did a little search on "free speech" tags and unearthed some real gems. Here's a sample of comments on the issue of flag burning:
"No, not me. I want American flag-burners to lose every time, to lose badly, to lose teeth. The only thing I want American flag-burners to do is self-immolate. People defending the flag of this country from traitorous progressive dirtbags are heroes.
"
"
When you announce a public desecration of the flag that is the. We'll known Battle Flag of the United States of America's military, you had better arm yourself, as Clint Eastwood said in Unforgiven to the the unarmed saloon owner.
"
"
When I was a grad student, there were anti-nuclear protests going on at the construction site of a nearby power plant. On one particular occasion, the protestors (using a small parcel of land adjoining the power plant as a base of operations) cut through a fence, snuck onto the plant grounds, vandalized some equipment with hammers and graffiti, then unfurled a few signs. When a few of the construction workers (and some security guards) saw this, they chased them. The protestors got back through the fence, and taunted those chasing them, saying that they were on private property, and thus couldn't be pursued.

To their eternal credit, the pursuers crossed over onto the property, and beat the living snot out of the protestors.
"
Just a sample. Now, it is clear that I've steered this argument in an absurdly partisan direction. But if that's a game you want to play, let's continue. We could go back to the McCarthy hearings and the chilling effect that had on free speech, but I could pick some examples from recent history. I remember the threats against anyone protesting the war in Iraq and the statist violence right wing media figures were willing to unleash on them. I clearly remember Megan McArdle gleefully wishing "New Yorkers picked up two by fours and went to town on some demonstrators". I also remember the FBI infiltrating peace groups under the pretext of national security. I didn't really hear a peep back then about free speech from hotair, or any other blogs of the right wing commentariat.
Sure, I concede that some liberals are more open to banning hate speech but a recent poll on censorship found that Republicans are almost twice as likely as Democrats to say that "there are any books that should be banned completely":
"A separate set of questions asked what kind of books should be barred from school libraries specifically. In almost every category, Republicans were more likely than Democrats to endorse book bans. That includes “books with explicit language” (bye-bye, “Catcher in the Rye”); “books which include witchcraft or sorcery” (to the slaughter, “Harry Potter”); “books which include vampires” (night night, “Twilight”); “books that discuss evolution” (into the bin, Darwin); and “books which question the existence of a divine being or beings” (quit your squawking, Stephen Hawking).
"
"Literature wasn’t the only medium that Republican respondents said was ripe for purging, according to the Harris poll. Compared with Democrats, Republicans were also more likely to say that some video games, movies and television programs should be banned.
"
So, liberals and conservatives are both pretty keen on trampling upon free speech. They're just sensitive to different transgressions.

Nyamujal said...

And the reason why I bring up Trump is his willingness to use the legal system as a cudgel to silence anyone who writes anything unflattering about him. His use of intimidation, scare tactics and insinuation that he controls an angry mob ready to take on journalists, "the media", or anyone he disagrees with is a very, very clear sign of the totalitarian impulse that has come to represent his brand of politics. There is currently no hate speech law on the books and I haven't come across any democrat who is willing to sponsor it. Isolated incidents of overzealous students on campus campaigning to silence someone they disagree with isn't in any way representative of a milieu where free speech is threatened. So all this bluster over some silly kids is unwarranted when faced with the actual prospect of a mainstream candidate who does his best to silence speech.

Paco Wové said...

"I clearly remember Megan McArdle gleefully wishing "New Yorkers picked up two by fours and went to town on some demonstrators"."

Really? You have a link for that exact quote?

Nyamujal said...

It's been a while, but here's the full quote and link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20030605201104/http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/003959.html
"I can't be mad at these little dweebs. I'm too busy laughing. And I think some in New York are going to laugh even harder when they try to unleash some civil disobedience, Lenin style, and some New Yorker who understands the horrors of war all too well picks up a two-by-four and teaches them how very effective violence can be when it's applied in a firm, pre-emptive manner.
"

Owen said...

Robert Cook at 2:13: "...the savage infliction of brutal violence on others is not the special province of any one group or religion, and that to single out the Muslims as if they are uniquely cruel or barbaric reflects bias and selective perception..."

You're (deliberately?) missing the point. We should condemn anyone who behaves this way. But it so happens that only one group is behaving this way. Is it coincidental that ---time and time and time again, and by loud and proud assertion-- it is Muslims who do these things?

Put another way: as we attempt to address these atrocities and prevent more, is there predictive power in the hypothesis that Muslims will commit them?

Paco Wové said...

So, not "gleefully wishing".

Anglelyne said...

Nyamujal: @Anglelyne, well said. I've gleaned from some of your posts that you support Trump. What do you make of protestors getting sucker punched out pushed around at his rallies? How did you feel when you saw that protestor getting punched in NC?


Lol. Lost your bet with yourself, I see.

Anyway, nice walls of text of text you put up there in response to getting called on your thuggish totalitarian instincts. People are always impressed by over-wrought responses packed with any tangentially-related talking points within reach. (To everyone's surprise, it turns out you think Trump is an big-meanie authoritarian Nazi.)

But, alas for the effort, everybody already knows that there are right-wing thugs and wannabe censors, just like everybody knows that power corrupts. As others have pointed out, you are very eager to evade, obfuscate, or otherwise bury in a giant shit-dump the fact that at present in the West the censorship and thuggery backed up by the law is overwhelmingly leftist. That they haven't been as successful in the U.S. as they have in Europe is not for want of trying.

The subject of the post, after all, is not some free-lance leftist thuggery, but the example of government thuggery in Britain that so delighted you.

Anglelyne said...

Nyamujal: Isolated incidents of overzealous students on campus campaigning to silence someone they disagree with isn't in any way representative of a milieu where free speech is threatened. So all this bluster over some silly kids is unwarranted when faced with the actual prospect of a mainstream candidate who does his best to silence speech.

Speech having been suppressed is in no way indicative of a milieu where free speech is threatened. Having had your speech rights suppressed by the kinds of people who are in no way representative of the kinds of people who want to suppress speech is indicative of being the kind of person who wants to suppress free speech.

Good stuff.

What's really flustering your fanny here is that you got called out for what you are. Hilariously, after hotly denying it, you turn right around and confirm the truth of the call-out.

Robert Cook said...

"You're (deliberately?) missing the point. We should condemn anyone who behaves this way. But it so happens that only one group is behaving this way. Is it coincidental that ---time and time and time again, and by loud and proud assertion-- it is Muslims who do these things?"


You're missing the point, Owen, which is that is not just Muslims committing acts of terrorism in the world, and, more to the point, most Muslims do not support or commit acts of terrorism. To refer to "Muslim terrorists" as if they represent the majority of Muslims in the world or to assert that all Muslims are obligated to kill others in order to further their religion (as I've seen some assert) is simply ignorant and xenophobic.

Owen said...

Robert Cook: you claim I miss the point. My point is this: is there no predictive power in the hypothesis that Mudlims will commit the next atrocity, and the next, and the next?

That is not the same as saying ALL Muslims are going to commit atrocities. But it may help us figure what it is, about angry people, that attracts them to Islam; or what it is about Islam that causes angry people to do these things. I wouldn't presume to know why the express directives of Sura 9 might have an effect here.

McCackie said...

Police Terrorism in England.

Nyamujal said...

"Having had your speech rights suppressed by the kinds of people who are in no way representative of the kinds of people who want to suppress speech is indicative of being the kind of person who wants to suppress free speech.
"
I'm sorry, but that little bit there made no sense. You're arguing in circles now. You seem eager to label me a totalitarian when you have no other evidence to support your claim apart from a comment. You write well but your style reminds me of someone trying hard to impress a high school debate judge.

"As others have pointed out, you are very eager to evade, obfuscate, or otherwise bury in a giant shit-dump the fact that at present in the West the censorship and thuggery backed up by the law is overwhelmingly leftist. "

You've convinced yourself of this, as have a lot of people of your ilk based on a-historical, poorly researched historiography that claims liberals are the true fascists. All this while you have real fascists from the Golden Dawn, to Jobbik, and the BNP goose stepping their way to election victories. Perhaps you think they're less of a threat to free speech. You do realize that European hate speech laws were enacted to guard against the kind of xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda that gave rise to the Holocaust right? They have been expanded more than I'd like over the years, but if you think a law that protects a clear minority (Muslims make up 4.5% of the UK population) from feeling threatened is somehow a bigger danger than Europe's steady march towards neo-Fascism, then I'd like some of that good purple kush you're smoking.

Anglelyne said...

Nyamujal: I'm sorry, but that little bit there made no sense. You're arguing in circles now.

Sorry if I was being too subtle for you. I was making fun of your own textbook excuse-making for leftist thuggery.

Nyamujal said...

I'm just a thug now? I thought you had me pegged for a totalitarian. Talking about Stasi tactics, you made a claim and did your best to repeatedly assert it despite the lack of evidence. You tried your best to polish a turd of an argument, but couldn't pass it off as gold.
Anyway, this has been fun.