In the news

Curious as to how what Mill fans on the forum think one view/idea/belief winning over another plays out in the real world? I'd have thought that it would look something like antisemitic, racist, prejudiced, etc., views being accepted by most rational people as being wrong, and thus, those people would dismiss them. And as they'd been shown to be wrong, people probably would not publish them. And when they were published, most people would be disappointed and call out the publisher for being dumb.

It's possible that we've been wrong about this though and antisemitism isn't wrong. Luckily, freedom of speech remains. This weirdos views can be discussed. No one is censoring him. The free market of ideas lives on.

Just to add: freedom of speech does not mean toleration of abhorrent and incorrect ideas.

I think it's supposed to work this way: I've used my ability to think for myself to decide that antisemitism is wrong. I therefore find it wrong when people preach antisemitic views. I therefore choose not to buy/read antisemitic publications. I may even choose not to buy products which give money to that publication.

We do not have to come to the rescue of antisemites because of the decisions made by individuals and the impact they have on private companies. But, of course, you can if you want.

*Edit - I've just repeated myself. Sorry. I'm watching star trek TNG at the same time. The episode with the mud monster that kills Tasha Yar.

Let's not forget the article is also massively sexist and misogynistic.

The episode with the mud monster that kills Tasha Yar.

Nooooooo!!!

https://youtu.be/XjTOR_BamT4

Happy No Yarr! But come on man, skip season 1, pick and choose with 2 and sit down proper with 3. Give Greatest Generation a listen too.

Ha! I'm making my way through in order. I've probably seen every episode during its life in perma-syndication as a teenager, but it's fun taking it on in order. Legit going to listen to the podcast though.

I'm up to S3 of DS9 now. Not entirely sure how it happened, but it's good comfort viewing...

#marriedlife

I don't quite understand your post but I'm fairly sure that the Campaign Against Antisemitism doesn't speak for all Jewish people (potential targets of antisemitism).

I don't disagree that what Myers said is antisemitic, I'm just saying think about who you consider an authoritative source.

fairly sure that the Campaign Against Antisemitism doesn't speak for all Jewish people

fairly sure they don't. they speak against anti-semitism. which is what this cockend has been called on. the hints in the name.

i don't understand why you're arguing the toss about this.

I'm not arguing! I'm just pointing out that an organisation whose sole purpose is to combat antisemitism (a worthy cause for sure) can't really be relied on to give an unbiased, objective take on whether something constitutes antisemitism.

An analogy - I'm sure the Campaign for Rural England do good work but if I wanted a balanced view on whether we should build more motorways they'd be pretty much the last people I'd call. You must get that?

The episode with the mud monster that kills Tasha Yar.

Dude. Spoilers, FFS.

.

Although by that analogy, you should seek their opinion. They have done extensive research into the negative impact of motorways on rural communities so their views have an element of validity, if you accept in advance the bias.

They shouldn't be quoted or cited as an independent view though which is I think what you were trying to get at.

considering that the good folk at antisemitism.co.uk go to considerable lengths to clarify that the definition of antisemitism they subscribe to is endorsed by any number of internationally recognised institutions, one of whom is admittedly not you, an oversight i'm sure they'll address in good time, i'm gonna go ahead and defer to them on this. your reticence to do the same is frankly, bizarre.

Actually yes you're right, ideally you'd speak to them and someone else to balance it out - the Pro-Motorway Alliance or whatever (I just made that up) - although an independent view from a non-campaigning organisation would also be good.

And your reticence to admit the clear conflict of interest present in any single-issue campaigning organisation is also pretty strange but here we are :)

pakistan prime minister removed from office due to links to bribery and corruption within his family
appoints his brother to take over < insert massive winky face emoji here >

sweet

The debate over antisemitism was had over 70 years ago and settled.

Giving ideas like this a platform is like debating the world being round or flat, except far, far worse. The argument has been done, those who disagree should shut the fuck up.

Stone them?

Does he have any "money resting in his account" ;)

Lies! I feel like you are not taking my internet safety seriously enough.

Stone them?

Not until I blow this whistle...

Even if they do say Jehovah?