Anti-BNP demo.

So, can anyone tell me what this 'BNP' did to destroy western civilization?
 
They didn't, some teenagers with placards stopped them.
 
What kind of an evil group bent on the destruction of civilization is that?

Damn amateurs.
 
They are Nationalists and hate foreigners. So yeah, kind of.

Debating what they'd be like if they were in power is purely academic, since as other people say they were warded off by teenagers with placards.
 
Dumbasses protesting against dumbasses... great. It's too bad sane people don't do this just as often, because every time this happens -- Commies protest against Nazis -- the Commies get validity; they're somehow better than those they fight. Respect to any moderates who protest against the BNP, a light chuckle at the commies who use the BNP to gain publicity, much like the BNP uses immigrants to do the same.
 
BNP needs to burned. Damn you free speech!
I find that statement hugely ironic since it's pretty much illegal to say the holocaust didn't happen anywhere in Europe. Why pick and choose where to allow free speech? Either it's all allowed (I support this) or all stupidity must be filtered equally.
 
I find that statement hugely ironic since it's pretty much illegal to say the holocaust didn't happen anywhere in Europe. Why pick and choose where to allow free speech? Either it's all allowed (I support this) or all stupidity must be filtered equally.

Only in mainland Europe.

Although if you deny the holocaust anywhere else in the world in a way that could be construed as a hate crime or inciting violence(I guess it's hard for it to be interpreted in any other way) then that would be your crime, rather than holocaust denial specifically.
 
Although if you deny the holocaust anywhere else in the world in a way that could be construed as a hate crime or inciting violence(I guess it's hard for it to be interpreted in any other way) then that would be your crime, rather than holocaust denial specifically.
Why?

If a man concludes based on the limited evidence he has before him that the holocaust didn't happen, how is that a hate crime? Indeed, how is that related to his views on Jews at all?
 
Why?

If a man concludes based on the limited evidence he has before him that the holocaust didn't happen, how is that a hate crime? Indeed, how is that related to his views on Jews at all?

It depends on the context. I'm not saying it is necessarily a hate crime, but in the majority of cases, the evidence suggests that it is part of a larger hate crime. It could be that he's stupid to reach that conclusion from the mountains of undeniable evidence, but more likely, he's a shit-stirer or someone with vested interests in minimising the holocaust's impact or whatever.

Free speech has limits, for example you can't get away with saying that you have a bomb on a plane (not that they are related in any way, I'm just saying that unlimited free speech is not pragmatically sound).

Having said that, I do believe the way they treat Holocust Denial on the continent is heavy handed, there have been some genuinely stupid people who went to jail for that, who were probably not malicious in intent.
 
I find that statement hugely ironic since it's pretty much illegal to say the holocaust didn't happen anywhere in Europe. Why pick and choose where to allow free speech? Either it's all allowed (I support this) or all stupidity must be filtered equally.

I was joking but holocaust denial is allowed here I know.
 
Protests are silly, they've just gained the BNP a little more publicity.

:upstare:
 
Dumbasses protesting against dumbasses... great. It's too bad sane people don't do this just as often, because every time this happens -- Commies protest against Nazis -- the Commies get validity; they're somehow better than those they fight. Respect to any moderates who protest against the BNP, a light chuckle at the commies who use the BNP to gain publicity, much like the BNP uses immigrants to do the same.
What are you talking about?

KIROVMAN: Oh look, a protest about the BNP.
NEMESIS: Dumbasses! Communists! Fresh-water parakeets! Bashi-bazouks!
 
Actually, the link I posted was about an apathetic student who didn't even turn up to his own protest.

Outside council house victoria square starting at 5pm, bring flags banners and anything that makes noise!

Well, if I'd checked my email earlier I would've been there.

How did it go?

I dont know i had things to sort out at home.
 
Oh yes, that was amusing. :p
but ranting about communists still makes no sense!
rhubarb rhubarb etc
 
It depends on the context. I'm not saying it is necessarily a hate crime, but in the majority of cases, the evidence suggests that it is part of a larger hate crime. It could be that he's stupid to reach that conclusion from the mountains of undeniable evidence, but more likely, he's a shit-stirer or someone with vested interests in minimising the holocaust's impact or whatever.

Free speech has limits, for example you can't get away with saying that you have a bomb on a plane (not that they are related in any way, I'm just saying that unlimited free speech is not pragmatically sound).

Having said that, I do believe the way they treat Holocust Denial on the continent is heavy handed, there have been some genuinely stupid people who went to jail for that, who were probably not malicious in intent.

Hate crimes shouldn't exist as a legal term because "hate" is open to interpretation. For example, I hate nazis but will anyone interpret that as a hate crime? No, but how would you determine which groups and things you are allowed to hate and which you can't hate? Why should I be able to hate nazis but not be able to hate Jews?

Besides, who cares if you hate Jews? I don't care if you hate them, I don't care if you hate blacks, Jews, gays or anyone else. That's entirely your problem, as long as you don't bring it into practice (through discrimination or even violence). I'll choose not to hang out with you, but I wouldn't say the government should lock you up. Hate crimes are a form of thought police.

And where free speech ends is really, really simple: freedom of speech ends where someone else's freedom starts. Saying there's a bomb on the plane should be illegal because it infringes on the freedom of others. Saying the holocaust never happened shouldn't be illegal because it affects no one unless you do something with that claim that does affect others.

It's up to individuals to decide whether what they want to say is appropriate, but it should never ever be the government's decision.
 
What are you talking about?

KIROVMAN: Oh look, a protest about the BNP.
NEMESIS: Dumbasses! Communists! Fresh-water parakeets! Bashi-bazouks!

They're two sides of the same coin: Right wing and left wing extremism, and I'd rather not associate with any of them even if they protest against someone worth protesting against, because their motives are still insincere - Commies hate Nazis, and Nazis hate Commies, so why aren't people joining protests by Nazis againsts communists? It's a double standard, one side is for some reason better than the other.
 
Why should it be a double standard if one agrees more with one side than the other?

It's perfectly possible to prefer "libertarian communism" to, say, racism. No communist party in the UK has an equivalent function or image to the BNP. Most people would join a protest against the BNP because they are incredibly racist, whereas they would not join a protest against communism, usually, because there are no radical communist parties going around getting in the media a lot about how they have criminal associations and are gigantic turds. So yes, oen side is for some reason better than the other. I have far fewer qualms about associating with, say, the Socialist Workers' Party, than the BNP.

I also like how you just assume these groups always have entirely cynical reasons for organising protests.

And anyway, the person posing the protest was a member of a forum.
 
Libertarianism is strongly pro-free market, communism is strongly anti-free market.
 
Why should it be a double standard if one agrees more with one side than the other?

It's perfectly possible to prefer "libertarian communism" to, say, racism. No communist party in the UK has an equivalent function or image to the BNP. Most people would join a protest against the BNP because they are incredibly racist, whereas they would not join a protest against communism, usually, because there are no radical communist parties going around getting in the media a lot about how they have criminal associations and are gigantic turds. So yes, oen side is for some reason better than the other. I have far fewer qualms about associating with, say, the Socialist Workers' Party, than the BNP.

I also like how you just assume these groups always have entirely cynical reasons for organising protests.

And anyway, the person posing the protest was a member of a forum.

I guess for you, what applies is the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Doesn't work like that for me -- I'd rather stay out of the feud if getting involved means associating with one side. Yeah, of course the communists aren't as notorious as the BNP, but that's a logical fallacy in my opinion. It depends on what you wanna focus on - Is the truly bad thing their ideology, or their actions? Because for Nazism and Communism, they're equally bad in both aspects. Except Communism has killed more, so which is it?
 
according to the third post in the link, the OP didn't even do (all in the link)
 
Nemesis6 said:
Yeah, of course the communists aren't as notorious as the BNP, but that's a logical fallacy in my opinion.
That's not what I said, though. I said that the BNP are more notorious because they are worse.

There is a 'lesser of two evils' thing going on for most people; both fascists and communists want to reform society in highly questionable ways, but only the fascists are flagrantly racist.

Nemesis6 said:
It depends on what you wanna focus on - Is the truly bad thing their ideology, or their actions? Because for Nazism and Communism, they're equally bad in both aspects. Except Communism has killed more, so which is it?
This is stupid because UK communists aren't actually of the same group or the same exact ideology as, say, Josef Stalin, just as the BNP aren't exactly the same as Adolph Hitler. But even then, there is arguably a lot more similarity between the BNP and the NSDAP than there is between the Politburo and the Socialist Workers' Party. There is a UK communist party that's genuinely stalinist and disgusting, but they don't organise many protests, and even if they did, I wouldn't attend.

You might as well indict a human rights society for the French Terror because they're both based on Enlightenment ideals.

The debate is in any case academic because there is no protest being organised by a communist party in this thread. One lazy youth posting a notice on the party forums does not a party protest make. This was just you once again using a given topic as a springboard into espousing your own opinions - exactly the thing you accuse "extremist" parties of doing.

You just saw an opportunity to blather away about your favourite tired subjects and took it, regardless of the relevance to the thread.
 
I've never even heard of the Communist Party of Great Britain in the news before. I once looked on their website, and it seems to be one eccentric guy.
 
No he's in the uber-capitalist masquerading as a communist party.
 
That's not what I said, though. I said that the BNP are more notorious because they are worse.

There is a 'lesser of two evils' thing going on for most people; both fascists and communists want to reform society in highly questionable ways, but only the fascists are flagrantly racist.

This is stupid because UK communists aren't actually of the same group or the same exact ideology as, say, Josef Stalin, just as the BNP aren't exactly the same as Adolph Hitler. But even then, there is arguably a lot more similarity between the BNP and the NSDAP than there is between the Politburo and the Socialist Workers' Party. There is a UK communist party that's genuinely stalinist and disgusting, but they don't organise many protests, and even if they did, I wouldn't attend.

You might as well indict a human rights society for the French Terror because they're both based on Enlightenment ideals.

The debate is in any case academic because there is no protest being organised by a communist party in this thread. One lazy youth posting a notice on the party forums does not a party protest make. This was just you once again using a given topic as a springboard into espousing your own opinions - exactly the thing you accuse "extremist" parties of doing.

You just saw an opportunity to blather away about your favourite tired subjects and took it, regardless of the relevance to the thread.

First of all, sorry if I misunderstood it, but I'm not using anything as a springboard - I see a post on a slightly extremist forum by a member(or leader?) of communiststudents.org.uk about a demonstration. My perception was that they were the ones organizing it, but then again, that's what I got from it. There's no problem if they're just tagging along, but the problem I have, once again, is attending one orchestrated by them, just like you said about that other communist group. You see, I don't know much about the British Left, so I have to apply basic sense like if they call themselves communists, then I probably shouldn't get involved, likewise with the "nationalists" of the right: It's a gamble; either way you risk just being manipulated by some assholes with an agenda.
 
Communists make baby Jebus cry.
 
Back
Top