9 ms·

This is my favourite take. Seeing the arrests in Edinburgh this past week has been heart wrenching. It's just... I thought we were better than that?

by smcn 4y ago

pclmulqdq 4y ago
The people getting arrested in the streets of Edinburgh were the same people who have been arguing to take away free speech and privacy rights from others. They got very little sympathy from the pro-free-speech crowd because they are decidedly anti-free-speech. They are now reaping what they have sowed. The sad part is that they, and all of their supporters, will probably go back to agitating against free speech after this whole thing blows over.
- Matl 4y ago
  > They got very little sympathy from the pro-free-speech crowd because Every officially designated 'pro free speech warrior' I've seen in recent times has been strongly for authoritarianism if it suits their agenda. Just ask many of them for their opinion on say Palestine or Yemen and you'll lots of ugly things come out, none of which are consistent with the image of 'freedom' these types like to portray themselves as. In fact, many of them seem to support anti-BDS laws and such. I do not endorse censorship attempts, but also let's not kid ourselves about the nature of many of the people who market themselves free speech advocates, please.
  - tharne 4y ago
    > Every officially designated 'pro free speech warrior' I've seen in recent times has been strongly for authoritarianism if it suits their agenda. Huge sweeping claim, with exactly nothing to back it up.
    - Matl 4y ago
      > In fact, many of them seem to support anti-BDS laws and such. This is a fairly easily to verify claim. Now of course it's not going to be all of them, but a large chunk from what I've seen. It's certainly more concrete than OP saying: > The people getting arrested in the streets of Edinburgh were the same people who have been arguing to take away free speech and privacy rights from others. Then providing nothing to back up the claim.
Defletter 4y ago
We're not, never were. We're seeing the slow decline in the hard fought rights gained over decades because we were never ever a live and let live country.
- heurisko 4y ago
  > we were never ever a live and let live country. The UK is one of the most "live and let live" countries in the world. However I think there is a marked difference between 2010 and 2022, especially in Scotland, who I used to think of as usually the sensible ones; the land of David Hume. Free speech is being curtailed by legislation that is auspiciously about preventing "hate crime", but in actuality is being used as a tool to shut down dissenting opinions, such as the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill.
  - Defletter 4y ago
    It's difficult for me to grasp why you suggest that the UK is "is one of the most 'live and let live' countries in the world." You realise that it wasn't that long ago that Alan Turing, a war hero to say the least, was chemically castrated, which lead to his death, for being gay. The Age of Consent wasn't equalised to 16 UK wide until 2008. Section 28 (and its legacies) were not outlawed until 2010. Homosexual acts stopped being grounds for dishonourable discharge from the armed forces in 2016. Same sex marriage wasn't permitted UK wide until 2020. The blanket ban against sexually active gay men from donating blood wasn't relaxed until 2020. Etc. People forget how extremely recent these things are. So it's hard for me to understand why you think the UK was and continues to be "one of the most 'live and let live' countries in the world"... is it just because our punishments were less severe? That Alan Turing was chemically castrated instead of thrown off a building? That constitutes us being a 'live and let live' society? And this is just the history I'm personally connected with. There's plenty of other examples of how the UK has treated other minorities poorly, notably the Windrush Generation. Being a 'live and let live' society isn't, and shouldn't, just mean being the least worst country, if we can even claim that title... it's about being a permissive society, of letting people get on with their own lives unmolested and in return you can expect the same. But as I've already shown, that was in no way the case for us... if you ever wonder why there's so few gay men around the age of 60+, it's because so so many of them were left to die of the gay disease. We were never ever a live and let live country.
danaris 4y ago
It's also some of the best evidence in favor of the anti-monarchist position I've yet seen.
- Defletter 4y ago
  Hardly... the powers used to make those arrests were passed by our elected Parliament.
  - danaris 4y ago
    I don't see how "there are monarchists in Parliament" is a refutation of "this treatment of people protesting the monarchy is a strong argument in favor of abolishing the monarchy"...?
    - Defletter 4y ago
      Those Monarchists were elected. I'm sorry that sometimes people you disagree with get elected. Regardless, it's the police who are enforcing this law passed by Parliament... I don't believe the law even mentions republican protests. You are blaming the Monarchy for the acts of the Government and Parliament.
kitd 4y ago
Were they arrested for "protesting the monarchy" or breaching the peace? Context is important. Silently holding up a banner: fine. Yelling at passing royals at a moment of deep solemnity: not fine, and stretching the free speech defence IMO. A bit like yelling at women entering an abortion clinic, or yelling loyalist slogans at an IRA funeral. There's a time & place. Edit: Also, this is OT anyway from the matter of privacy and "nothing to hide".
- drewcoo 4y ago
  A protest that is not irritating is not a protest. And as for time & place, finding the right moment and location to be maximally irritating is part of the art of protest.
  - BitwiseFool 4y ago
    >"A protest that is not irritating is not a protest.... finding the right moment and location to be maximally irritating is part of the art of protest. " Which school of thought is this from? Protesting can take many forms and they need not be offensive and/or irritating to be effective. I personally respect calm, dignified, and persistent protestors far more than the loud, disruptive, and in-your-face ones.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      If your calm and dignified protest achieves a meaningful result, it's because you were a better option compared to someone else who was not calm and dignified. There's some value in that, but not without that other guy to unlock it.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Royals getting yelled at? How horrible! Maybe the common British people should take notes from their French neighbors and teach these royal shits what true persecution feels like.
  - 4y ago

This is my favourite take. Seeing the arrests in Edinburgh this past week has been heart wrenching. It's just... I thought we were better than that?

by smcn 4y ago

This is my favourite take. Seeing the arrests in Edinburgh this past week has been heart wrenching. It's just... I thought we were better than that?

pclmulqdq 4y ago

The people getting arrested in the streets of Edinburgh were the same people who have been arguing to take away free speech and privacy rights from others. They got very little sympathy from the pro-free-speech crowd because they are decidedly anti-free-speech. They are now reaping what they have sowed. The sad part is that they, and all of their supporters, will probably go back to agitating against free speech after this whole thing blows over.

Matl 4y ago
> They got very little sympathy from the pro-free-speech crowd because Every officially designated 'pro free speech warrior' I've seen in recent times has been strongly for authoritarianism if it suits their agenda. Just ask many of them for their opinion on say Palestine or Yemen and you'll lots of ugly things come out, none of which are consistent with the image of 'freedom' these types like to portray themselves as. In fact, many of them seem to support anti-BDS laws and such. I do not endorse censorship attempts, but also let's not kid ourselves about the nature of many of the people who market themselves free speech advocates, please.
- tharne 4y ago
  > Every officially designated 'pro free speech warrior' I've seen in recent times has been strongly for authoritarianism if it suits their agenda. Huge sweeping claim, with exactly nothing to back it up.
  - Matl 4y ago
    > In fact, many of them seem to support anti-BDS laws and such. This is a fairly easily to verify claim. Now of course it's not going to be all of them, but a large chunk from what I've seen. It's certainly more concrete than OP saying: > The people getting arrested in the streets of Edinburgh were the same people who have been arguing to take away free speech and privacy rights from others. Then providing nothing to back up the claim.

Defletter 4y ago

We're not, never were. We're seeing the slow decline in the hard fought rights gained over decades because we were never ever a live and let live country.

heurisko 4y ago
> we were never ever a live and let live country. The UK is one of the most "live and let live" countries in the world. However I think there is a marked difference between 2010 and 2022, especially in Scotland, who I used to think of as usually the sensible ones; the land of David Hume. Free speech is being curtailed by legislation that is auspiciously about preventing "hate crime", but in actuality is being used as a tool to shut down dissenting opinions, such as the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill.
- Defletter 4y ago
  It's difficult for me to grasp why you suggest that the UK is "is one of the most 'live and let live' countries in the world." You realise that it wasn't that long ago that Alan Turing, a war hero to say the least, was chemically castrated, which lead to his death, for being gay. The Age of Consent wasn't equalised to 16 UK wide until 2008. Section 28 (and its legacies) were not outlawed until 2010. Homosexual acts stopped being grounds for dishonourable discharge from the armed forces in 2016. Same sex marriage wasn't permitted UK wide until 2020. The blanket ban against sexually active gay men from donating blood wasn't relaxed until 2020. Etc. People forget how extremely recent these things are. So it's hard for me to understand why you think the UK was and continues to be "one of the most 'live and let live' countries in the world"... is it just because our punishments were less severe? That Alan Turing was chemically castrated instead of thrown off a building? That constitutes us being a 'live and let live' society? And this is just the history I'm personally connected with. There's plenty of other examples of how the UK has treated other minorities poorly, notably the Windrush Generation. Being a 'live and let live' society isn't, and shouldn't, just mean being the least worst country, if we can even claim that title... it's about being a permissive society, of letting people get on with their own lives unmolested and in return you can expect the same. But as I've already shown, that was in no way the case for us... if you ever wonder why there's so few gay men around the age of 60+, it's because so so many of them were left to die of the gay disease. We were never ever a live and let live country.

danaris 4y ago

It's also some of the best evidence in favor of the anti-monarchist position I've yet seen.

Defletter 4y ago
Hardly... the powers used to make those arrests were passed by our elected Parliament.
- danaris 4y ago
  I don't see how "there are monarchists in Parliament" is a refutation of "this treatment of people protesting the monarchy is a strong argument in favor of abolishing the monarchy"...?
  - Defletter 4y ago
    Those Monarchists were elected. I'm sorry that sometimes people you disagree with get elected. Regardless, it's the police who are enforcing this law passed by Parliament... I don't believe the law even mentions republican protests. You are blaming the Monarchy for the acts of the Government and Parliament.

kitd 4y ago

Were they arrested for "protesting the monarchy" or breaching the peace? Context is important. Silently holding up a banner: fine. Yelling at passing royals at a moment of deep solemnity: not fine, and stretching the free speech defence IMO. A bit like yelling at women entering an abortion clinic, or yelling loyalist slogans at an IRA funeral. There's a time & place. Edit: Also, this is OT anyway from the matter of privacy and "nothing to hide".

drewcoo 4y ago
A protest that is not irritating is not a protest. And as for time & place, finding the right moment and location to be maximally irritating is part of the art of protest.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  >"A protest that is not irritating is not a protest.... finding the right moment and location to be maximally irritating is part of the art of protest. " Which school of thought is this from? Protesting can take many forms and they need not be offensive and/or irritating to be effective. I personally respect calm, dignified, and persistent protestors far more than the loud, disruptive, and in-your-face ones.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    If your calm and dignified protest achieves a meaningful result, it's because you were a better option compared to someone else who was not calm and dignified. There's some value in that, but not without that other guy to unlock it.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
Royals getting yelled at? How horrible! Maybe the common British people should take notes from their French neighbors and teach these royal shits what true persecution feels like.
- 4y ago