5 ms·

> I have elsewhere. Could you relink them? I don't see anything, and I don't think you could show it is to the same extent as in the UK. > I wouldn’t say it’s

> I have elsewhere. Could you relink them? I don't see anything, and I don't think you could show it is to the same extent as in the UK. > I wouldn’t say it’s a forced viewpoint here either. Then why do cops keep showing up for wrongthink?

hnlmorg 2y ago
> Could you relink them? I don't see anything, and I don't think you could show it is to the same extent as in the UK. No. I’ve said my piece and I’m done. And it isn’t even happening to extent you keep claiming. There’s been lots of evidence posted to prove that point. > Then why do cops keep showing up for wrongthink? They don’t. And I know you’ll follow up with some unverifiable linked to highly disreputable sources which are several years out of date. So let’s just close this argument off by saying you think you know better than everyone else despite not living in the UK nor reading either up-to-date nor reputable sources. And this is precisely why this meme of the UK policing thought persists: because people form an opinion based off silly headlines and then are too singleminded to listen to the full facts. I honestly can’t be bothered any longer on this. I’ve been actively involved in politics around precisely these kinds of issues, but of course you know better than me because it fits your own narrative about how your own country can’t also be going down the shitter.
- kennysoona 2y ago
  > No. I’ve said my piece and I’m done. You said this, but then continued to go out of your way to reply to another unrelated comment. Copying and pasting some links would have been less effort. > And it isn’t even happening to extent you keep claiming. There’s been lots of evidence posted to prove that point. Actually my llast reply showed quite the opposite. The scale is much larger, about 2,500 incidents. > They don’t. They do, at least 2500 times. See a recent reply for sources. > And I know you’ll follow up with some unverifiable linked to highly disreputable sources which are several years out of date. > So let’s just close this argument off by saying you think you know better than everyone else despite not living in the UK nor reading either up-to-date nor reputable sources. It's a shame here to see you assuming bad faith. This reeks of tribalism, not objective argument. The source I found was from the UK government, so I think that you preemptively dismiss that really shows who is being rational and objective and who is not. > So let’s just close this argument off by saying you think you know better than everyone else despite not living in the UK You keep looking for reasons to dismiss my argument fro reasons other than merit of the argument. This is telling. I lived in the UK for years, actually, and the evidence speaks for itself, no personal experience is necessary. > I honestly can’t be bothered any longer on this. Maybe. You say and wrote this, yet you have a second reply you posted after this that I am about to respond to. I won't be surprised if I end up responding yet again.
  - hnlmorg 2y ago
    > It's a shame here to see you assuming bad faith. This reeks of tribalism, not objective argument. Because your comments are bad faith. And I’ve addressed all your other nonsense already. What you’re not grasping is the cultural differences between our two police forces. In America, the police go relatively unchecked. They buy ex-military hardware, lie in interrogations, literally kill their own innocent citizens because of their skin colour, and at no point face any repercussions. So laws in the US need to be water tight to prevent abuse — and even then, they still get flouted by those who should be upholding them. Whereas Europe have a hell of a lot more checks and balances for our police forces. Bad cops get struck off. Good cops cannot place charges without approval from a whole other department, and thus not emotionally connected to the case. If police lie or exaggerate in those reports then they’re up for a plethora of serious charges themselves. So UK law often feels more ripe for abuse but that’s because we have stronger processes in place to protect against abuse. Coming back to your original point, you don’t know the seriousness of the comments shared. We’ve already given examples about how online comments can have real and damaging physical consequences. Such as organising riots. People in the US have been charged for doing just the same thing. In the UK the law is called “hate speech” but that’s doesn’t mean that people are being investigated just for saying “I hate x”. Just like how there are multiple different names for different types of reasons and severity of killing someone, “hate speech” is just a term that covers a wide plethora of circumstances. And if — and when — those “hate speech” laws are abused, the police are raked over the coals for overreach. So when you claim “whataboutism” what’s actually happening is I’m demonstrating the cultural differences that you seem oblivious too. When you claim “thought crimes” you’re completely missing the nuance in these cases. And when you’re claiming the police are abusing their powers you’re being, at best, deeply ironic. At worst, deeply ignorant. In fact this whole argument and your single mindedness can be entirely summed up as “deeply ignorant”. So why do UK citizens defend this claim against “thought police”? Because it literally isn’t happening. It’s just some bullshit concocted by right wing media (the same people who talk about rigged elections, “out of control immigration” and other made up bullshit) and Americans who want to feel better about their own shitty police force.
    - kennysoona 2y ago

hnlmorg 2y ago

> Could you relink them? I don't see anything, and I don't think you could show it is to the same extent as in the UK. No. I’ve said my piece and I’m done. And it isn’t even happening to extent you keep claiming. There’s been lots of evidence posted to prove that point. > Then why do cops keep showing up for wrongthink? They don’t. And I know you’ll follow up with some unverifiable linked to highly disreputable sources which are several years out of date. So let’s just close this argument off by saying you think you know better than everyone else despite not living in the UK nor reading either up-to-date nor reputable sources. And this is precisely why this meme of the UK policing thought persists: because people form an opinion based off silly headlines and then are too singleminded to listen to the full facts. I honestly can’t be bothered any longer on this. I’ve been actively involved in politics around precisely these kinds of issues, but of course you know better than me because it fits your own narrative about how your own country can’t also be going down the shitter.

kennysoona 2y ago
> No. I’ve said my piece and I’m done. You said this, but then continued to go out of your way to reply to another unrelated comment. Copying and pasting some links would have been less effort. > And it isn’t even happening to extent you keep claiming. There’s been lots of evidence posted to prove that point. Actually my llast reply showed quite the opposite. The scale is much larger, about 2,500 incidents. > They don’t. They do, at least 2500 times. See a recent reply for sources. > And I know you’ll follow up with some unverifiable linked to highly disreputable sources which are several years out of date. > So let’s just close this argument off by saying you think you know better than everyone else despite not living in the UK nor reading either up-to-date nor reputable sources. It's a shame here to see you assuming bad faith. This reeks of tribalism, not objective argument. The source I found was from the UK government, so I think that you preemptively dismiss that really shows who is being rational and objective and who is not. > So let’s just close this argument off by saying you think you know better than everyone else despite not living in the UK You keep looking for reasons to dismiss my argument fro reasons other than merit of the argument. This is telling. I lived in the UK for years, actually, and the evidence speaks for itself, no personal experience is necessary. > I honestly can’t be bothered any longer on this. Maybe. You say and wrote this, yet you have a second reply you posted after this that I am about to respond to. I won't be surprised if I end up responding yet again.
- hnlmorg 2y ago
  > It's a shame here to see you assuming bad faith. This reeks of tribalism, not objective argument. Because your comments are bad faith. And I’ve addressed all your other nonsense already. What you’re not grasping is the cultural differences between our two police forces. In America, the police go relatively unchecked. They buy ex-military hardware, lie in interrogations, literally kill their own innocent citizens because of their skin colour, and at no point face any repercussions. So laws in the US need to be water tight to prevent abuse — and even then, they still get flouted by those who should be upholding them. Whereas Europe have a hell of a lot more checks and balances for our police forces. Bad cops get struck off. Good cops cannot place charges without approval from a whole other department, and thus not emotionally connected to the case. If police lie or exaggerate in those reports then they’re up for a plethora of serious charges themselves. So UK law often feels more ripe for abuse but that’s because we have stronger processes in place to protect against abuse. Coming back to your original point, you don’t know the seriousness of the comments shared. We’ve already given examples about how online comments can have real and damaging physical consequences. Such as organising riots. People in the US have been charged for doing just the same thing. In the UK the law is called “hate speech” but that’s doesn’t mean that people are being investigated just for saying “I hate x”. Just like how there are multiple different names for different types of reasons and severity of killing someone, “hate speech” is just a term that covers a wide plethora of circumstances. And if — and when — those “hate speech” laws are abused, the police are raked over the coals for overreach. So when you claim “whataboutism” what’s actually happening is I’m demonstrating the cultural differences that you seem oblivious too. When you claim “thought crimes” you’re completely missing the nuance in these cases. And when you’re claiming the police are abusing their powers you’re being, at best, deeply ironic. At worst, deeply ignorant. In fact this whole argument and your single mindedness can be entirely summed up as “deeply ignorant”. So why do UK citizens defend this claim against “thought police”? Because it literally isn’t happening. It’s just some bullshit concocted by right wing media (the same people who talk about rigged elections, “out of control immigration” and other made up bullshit) and Americans who want to feel better about their own shitty police force.
  - kennysoona 2y ago