Max Lowe Racial Stereotyping

[Bubbles]

54 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Really?

So you advocate a kind of bullying as long as it is against someone that you dont like?

7:40 in that video.

Listen to her speech.

Then try and defend her.

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

 

Yes, she definitely deserves to be pulled up on it. A dignified response though is telling her that what she is saying is wrong, and the reasons why, not just slinging mud back at her.

She doesnt voice her opinions on the public eye much anymore, because she is yet another victim of shutting down people with alternative opinions. Cutting people off only makes the situation worse. Like I say, give her a platform to voice her opinions and then make her look silly by taking them opinions apart with reasoning.

You claim ignore her but obviously dont as you have posted up her tweets and must have known they were there to repost them in the first place.

Never her seen her say all Muslims are terrorists, if she has that is clearly incorrect. Would be interested to see what damage she has caused to the Muslim community?

The fact that you can still not see your hypocrisy is worrying. Posting provocative language on DCFCFans is no different to posting it on Twitter, Facebook or wherever.

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, Squid said:

7:40 in that video.

Listen to her speech.

Then try and defend her.

Where have I defender her?

I defend her right to free speech.

If what she says is hate speech she will be arrested.

If what she says is wrong it is easy to take it apart without having to resort to the sort of language that is supposedly causing the offence in the first place.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yes, she definitely deserves to be pulled up on it. A dignified response though is telling her that what she is saying is wrong, and the reasons why, not just slinging mud back at her. 

She doesnt voice her opinions on the public eye much anymore, because she is yet another victim of shutting down people with alternative opinions. Cutting people off only makes the situation worse. Like I say, give her a platform to voice her opinions and then make her look silly by taking them opinions apart with reasoning. Or because she keeps getting sued for making up lies? I don't agree with banning any Twitter accounts btw, unless they are committing a criminal offence. 

You claim ignore her but obviously dont as you have posted up her tweets and must have known they were there to repost them in the first place. When I say I ignore her, I mean I don't interact with her content whatsoever. I had seen/read about them in the past, through no intention of my own. All I had to do was Google 'Katie Hopkins worst tweets' to find them. 

Never her seen her say all Muslims are terrorists, if she has that is clearly incorrect. Would be interested to see what damage she has caused to the Muslim community? 'In 2016, Mail Online was forced to pay £150,000 to a Muslim family whom Hopkins had falsely accused of extremist links'; 'Calling on people to "fight for your country" against Muslims, Hopkins stated that "we can commit to arm ourselves, not just with the help of the NRA," adding "get furious and fight back".'

'A Muslim man in Heckmondwike stated that he was attacked by assailants who graffitied his house with Hopkins' tweet, including her misspelling "#Machester".' Is that not an example of the damage she's done to the Muslim community? One attack is bad enough, but there's also the unquantifiable impact of her comments on negative stereotypes of Muslims, or just Asians in general.

The fact that you can still not see your hypocrisy is worrying. Posting provocative language on DCFCFans is no different to posting it on Twitter, Facebook or wherever. Provocative language is saying that we need to 'get furious and fight back', knowing that thousands, if not millions, of people will hear it. Not calling her vile on a football forum.

 

[ariotofmyown]

8 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Where have I defender her?

I defend her right to free speech.

If what she says is hate speech she will be arrested.

If what she says is wrong it is easy to take it apart without having to resort to the sort of language that is supposedly causing the offence in the first place.

Such a tiresome debate. If everyone lived in your idealistic rational world then there would be no problem with the likes of Hopkins chatting vile rubbish.

You may not realise this but thanks to social media, her false and hate filled posts reach loads of loads of people, some of whom become more extreme and radicalised when their views are confirmed by public figures, whose only qualifications are that they were on a reality tv show.

Your pedantic points of drilling into the minutiae of certain posts completely misses the big picture. Why pick this as your fight? Why style yourself as defender of the extreme far right for their right to have free speech?  

Remember when you read about the vile views of that now ex-government advisor, then wondered if it had been worth all those posts to defend Johnson's right to make those letterbox comments, and that they probably weren't racist if you read them in a certain way?

Well when some nutter takes Hopkins literally and kills/maims one of her targets using her as inspiration, maybe then you'll remember your oh-so enlightened attitude for her to say whatever she likes.

Come on, you are better than this.

[Comrade 86]

25 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I defend her right to free speech.

So you're calling out people for slagging her off but defending her right to say whatever poisonous shizzle she likes and yet somehow, in your head, it's everyone else being hypocritical. 

That's absolutely hilarious ?

  

 

[G STAR RAM]

11 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

 

First 2 paragraphs noted, there is no excuse for lying to make her point and, it would appear, the fine and her losing her platform are the correct punishments for this

Very interesting in your 3rd paragraph that against Muslims isnt included with the speech marks, any reason why?

If her comments have directly led to the attack then I think she should be investigated by the police, as she has clearly incited violence.

Personally I'm happy that someone in this country wants to lead the 'fight back' against Islamic extremists but then I guess that is because I am not comfortable with innocent commuters being blown up on trains on their way to work, innocent children being blown up at concerts, innocent people being stabbed to death on nights out and innocent girls being systematically drugged and raped.

I'm not sure where the line gets drawn for people deciding what language is and isnt provocative to be quite honest.

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

So you're calling out people for slagging her off but defending her right to say whatever poisonous shizzle she likes and yet somehow, in your head, it's everyone else being hypocritical. 

That's absolutely hilarious ?

  

 

Nope, I'm calling out people for moaning about her using hateful language and then using it themselves.

As long as the language used by either side does not incite violence I dont have a problem with either.

Just like I defend your right to use silly words like shizzle to try and make yourself look good!

[G STAR RAM]

Going to leave this conversation now, this is in the football section after all. More than happy to carry on the debate in The Jim Smith Room though.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

14 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

First 2 paragraphs noted, there is no excuse for lying to make her point and, it would appear, the fine and her losing her platform are the correct punishments for this

Very interesting in your 3rd paragraph that against Muslims isnt included with the speech marks, any reason why? All of those words in that paragraph were from her Wikipedia page (which is backed up by numerous citations). So the speech marks were her  own words, and the words around them a direct quote from Wiki. 

You raise a fair point though. A little reading has led me to this article: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/katie-hopkins-muslims-far-right-speech-mailonline-racism-islamophobia-david-horowitz-freedom-center-a8078356.html

It seems the comments were made in a speech where she was talking of a 'Muslim mafia' and 'institutionalised discrimination' against whites. I'm not sure who she's asking the audience to 'fight back' against, but I can't imagine it's President Trump's government? I think this one is up in the air. It doesn't, however, take away from the false accusation against a Muslim family of terrorism links. 

In my digging, I also found her referring to migrants as 'a plague of feral humans'. Charming, and no doubt empowering to those who hold similar beliefs.

If her comments have directly led to the attack then I think she should be investigated by the police, as she has clearly incited violence.

Personally I'm happy that someone in this country wants to lead the 'fight back' against Islamic extremists but then I guess that is because I am not comfortable with innocent commuters being blown up on trains on their way to work, innocent children being blown up at concerts, innocent people being stabbed to death on nights out and innocent girls being systematically drugged and raped. Your opinion is a perfectly reasonable one. However, where it gets dangerous is where people like Hopkins blur the lines between the huge majority of normal Muslims and the tiny minority of extremists. When she does that, people with far less intelligence than you are going to struggle, or even be unwilling, to tell the difference and treat them as one. It sounds cliché, but with great power comes great responsibility. Someone with an audience the size of hers should not be making false accusation of terrorism.

I'm not sure where the line gets drawn for people deciding what language is and isnt provocative to be quite honest. Google's definition of 'provocative': 'causing anger or another strong reaction, especially deliberately'. My comments were not intended to cause anger. Hopkins' blatantly are, and to a much wider audience.

Edit: Just seen your post, @G STAR RAM. Feel free to comment on this reply in the Politics Thread.

[Comrade 86]

12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Just like I defend your right to use silly words like shizzle to try and make yourself look good!

See there you go again. You mock my language then claim to be defending it when in fact you're doing the opposite. You're not too bright are you mate? 

Fact is, you're a Sun reader (yeah we get it, only for the sports pages ?) defending a hate monger whose wages you helped pay. You've spent the whole morning trying to shut down other folk voicing their opinions because in YOUR opinion, they're being hypocritical. Dress it up however you like mate but I really doubt you're fooling anyone but yourself.

[Raich Carter]

14 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Your pedantic points of drilling into the minutiae of certain posts completely misses the big picture. Why pick this as your fight? Why style yourself as defender of the extreme far right for their right to have free speech?  

I'm not taking sides with anyone here (I daren't!) but surely free speech is free speech...? If certain things, regardless of how 'evil' they are, can't be said then it's not free speech - it's binary, has to be else it's not 'free' is it.

And with regard to 'evil'; surely it's all about perspective - Hitler didn't think he was evil, nor does Trump but to many, they are the epitome of evil. 

For the record : in my view she's a hateful witch and she throws plenty out so sets herself up to get it back. I'd assume she doesn't care; why else would she continue to be so controversial... However, it could be damaging her in ways she doesn't know - time will tell. 

[TommyPowell]

20 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Nope, I'm calling out people for moaning about her using hateful language and then using it themselves.

As long as the language used by either side does not incite violence I dont have a problem with either.

Just like I defend your right to use silly words like shizzle to try and make yourself look good!

attempting to defend  the indefensible And i dont mean your last remark to Darkfruit

 

[G STAR RAM]

9 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

See there you go again. You mock my language then claim to be defending it when in fact you're doing the opposite. You're not too bright are you mate? 

Fact is, you're a Sun reader (yeah we get it, only for the sports pages ?) defending a hate monger whose wages you helped pay. You've spent the whole morning trying to shut down other folk voicing their opinions because in YOUR opinion, they're being hypocritical. Dress it up however you like mate but I really doubt you're fooling anyone but yourself.

Where am I doing the opposite? I've said you can say Shizzle all you want, that's your right. Definitely makes you look brighter than a stupid old Sun reader like me (despite the fact I've already said that I dont read the news in there. I just buy it to look at football players and horses because I'm not bright enough to read the hard words).

In reality it is you that has the problem understanding things. Show me anywhere I've tried to shut somebody down and you win the argument.

You wont be able to do it I'm afraid, so you will resort to some derogatory comment and personal attack because that's what you do...and once again something that is your right to do.

Enjoy having the last word and enjoy your day ?

[G STAR RAM]

6 minutes ago, TommyPowell said:

attempting to defend  the indefensible

Free speech is indefensible? Think you should move to North Korea or China.

[Comrade 86]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Think you should move to North Korea or China.

Argument won. 

[G STAR RAM]

Just now, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Argument won. 

You've not repeated my whole quote...

[ariotofmyown]

22 minutes ago, Raich Van Carter said:

I'm not taking sides with anyone here (I daren't!) but surely free speech is free speech...? If certain things, regardless of how 'evil' they are, can't be said then it's not free speech - it's binary, has to be else it's not 'free' is it.

And with regard to 'evil'; surely it's all about perspective - Hitler didn't think he was evil, nor does Trump but to many, they are the epitome of evil. 

For the record : in my view she's a hateful witch and she throws plenty out so sets herself up to get it back. I'd assume she doesn't care; why else would she continue to be so controversial... However, it could be damaging her in ways she doesn't know - time will tell. 

Hopkins seems to regularly cross the line between free speech and inciting hatred.

Until 20 years ago, Free Speech meant you could say any old rubbish to your small group of mates down the pub. If you could find lots of people interested in your extreme views, you might be able to get a book printed or a column in the paper, but this output was regulated as to not incite hatred or violence (although Mein Kampf still got released...3 cheers for free speech).

The internet has now made it possible to reach anyone in the world. Some gun nut in the USA can read Hopkins and be inspired to go and shoot up a mosque. Or a wannabe terrorist in Saudi can read what she says and decide to slit a westerners throat in revenge.

Or how many people will have read a few lines about Cummings weirdo been forced to resign and decide he was a victim for raising the scientific "fact" that white people are more intelligent than black.

Allowing people to spread lies, hate and mis-information is not free speech.

[Bigfella]

Sad that a serious subject has degenerated into a fight between the usual protagonists.

[LazloW]

I know certain people are having a lot of ‘fun’ on this thread, but I wonder if it is time for the mods to draw a line under it and/or move it to the politics thread?
 It seems like it has gone well beyond the original discussion about what a Radio Derby presenter said about Derby players, into something far wider.  Considering the subject matter, this isn’t surprising, but it’s gone a long way past football (where I for one keep my focus on this forum).

Just a thought.