6 ms·

You put hateful in quotes but I do want to point out that this is the tweet from the thing you linked: > Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f*** hotels

You put hateful in quotes but I do want to point out that this is the tweet from the thing you linked: > Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f*** hotels full of the bastards for all I care …. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it

n4r9 2y ago
The context also needs to be noted. This was part of the social media storm that whipped up a wave of right-wing, racist hatred and violence in the wake of the Southport riots. No such waves of violence have sprung out of trans activism.
- okeuro49 2y ago
  There is no "far right" or people being "whipped up". Disorder is a consequence of failed government policy. E.g. from 2023: "Northern seaside town now a 'powder keg' over asylum seeker tensions" "The tension in Skegness has grown after hundreds of migrants from the Middle East, Africa and Albania were crammed into former tourist hotels on the seafront." "Cars have been vandalised, shop windows broken, mattresses set alight and scuffles reported between migrants and security staff. Officials say 229 asylum seekers are staying in up to seven hotels on and around the town’s promenade, but locals say the figure is more like 700."
  - n4r9 2y ago
    > There is no "far right" or people being "whipped up". The wikipedia page about the riots has 127 mentions of "far-right" [0]. From the very start there were links between the protestors and organisations like the EDL. The online misinformation was spread by far-right influencers such Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins, and Andrew Tate, as well as a host of global right-wing accounts. The organisation Alliance4Europe which campaigns against online misinformation found that "non-domestic far-right groups played a significant role in inflaming tensions following the Southport murders" [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_riots [1] https://alliance4europe.eu/the-international-far-rights-impact-on-the-uk-southport-riots https://alliance4europe.eu/the-international-far-rights-impa...
    - roenxi 2y ago
      Far-right, unfortunately, is something of a trigger word suggesting Wikipedia is about to become unreliable in its coverage. As far as I can tell any suggestion that immigration levels should be low is likely to be a far-right position which means it is a very large tent. A tent that includes some undesirables and a lot of quite normal people. There is an odd situation where apparently countries can simultaneously adopt anti-growth policies while having an infinite surplus of real resources to handle more migrants and anyone who believes otherwise is de-facto attempting to restart the Jew ovens whether they personally deny it or not. Where a more charitable view would be if a country maintains high immigration into a situation where real resources don't grow that is quite possibly leading towards a genocide. People aren't all smiles and sunshine when times get tough; it is more sensible to engineer society towards prosperity.
      - n4r9 2y ago
        Not so; Keir Starmer is talking about cracking down on immigration and is certainly not far-right. You veer into the far-right when you dehumanise immigrants and use terms like "cockroaches", "Muslim invasion", or "great replacement".
        roenxi 2y ago
        Keir Starmer is pushing [0] pretty standard far-right conspiracy theories about how the government was running an open-borders experiment, by design, in contravention of stated policies. > ...and is certainly not far-right. He's quacking like a duck. Talking about open borders is fair game for being identified as a dog whistler for people who believe in the great replacement theory - particularly when it is framed as duplicitous and intentional. I'd agree that it isn't, but once Wikipedia starts breaking out "far right" that is the sort of standard that can be applied. [0] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-migration-28-november-2024 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-migratio... - although humorously it is apparently standard practice to redact parts of speeches as political in a political speech given by a politician.
        2y ago
- like_any_other 2y ago
  You mean in the wake of the Southport child murder mass stabbing, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Southport_stabbings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Southport_stabbings
  - n4r9 2y ago
    Yes. But specifically I'm referring to how a group of far-right social media accounts exploited that tragedy to whip up a violent frenzy of riots, starting with Southport.
tossandthrow 2y ago
> So people have been arrested for posting something online, even if nobody appears to have seen it, and they delete it shortly after. The message you are quoting is now being propagated,which is unfortunate. Most of the western world is moving to a risk based legal system and has a proportionaly measure build in. If the message in question had a limited reach, then it should not lead to a conviction. Just like we don't convict people who has inappropriate thoughts or write inappropriate things in their diary.
- saagarjha 2y ago
  I'm not sharing the message because it brings me joy to have it shown to more people. I think it's a pretty reprehensible thing to say. I'm sure people say worse into their personal diary or even among friends and that is not criminalized. I might possibly even consider the defense of "oh nobody really reads my posts anyway and I deleted it quickly". But I absolutely will not stand for trying to claim that the post was scare-quotes "hateful". It was hateful, full stop. This is not polite discourse that was unfairly marked as hate because of some political slant. It was clearly hate, even if wasn't seen by anyone, even if it got deleted.
  - Saline9515 2y ago
    Hate is a normal thing in human societies. Freedom of speech also encompasses expressing hatred and negative feelings. What you can do to mitigate it is to solve the problems that create hate. In the case of the UK, addressing the mass-rapes of British girls, among other things. Sending people to prison for social media posts is a typical totalitarian move, similar to what you find in China, North Korea or Russia. None of the underlying issues are solved by intimidating your population, who, at some point, will just start to leave quietly.
    - foldr 2y ago
      Lots of countries outlaw hate speech. I know that Americans tend to think that this is a slippery slope to totalitarianism, but much of the rest of the world disagrees. And America in its present state isn't a great advertisment for its own particular model of public discourse and political freedom. Obviously, you can also be jailed in the US for social media posts that break the law. Here is one example: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer-douglass-mackey-sentenced-after-conviction-election https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer... It's tasteless to bring up rape cases that are irrelevant here. The tweet we're talking about was posted in the wake of the Southport stabbings. Nobody can seriously suggest that historical failures to investigate rape cases in Pakistani communities can be related to an outburst decades later about burning down hotels housing asylum seekers.
leereeves 2y ago
That certainly doesn't meet the threshold for a credible threat. It's a despicable thing to say, and it seems like even she realized that when she calmed down and deleted it. But what's the basis for treating it as a crime?
- foldr 2y ago
  It wasn’t prosecuted as a death threat, so it’s not really relevant whether or not the threat was credible. The relevant offense is inciting racial hatred.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    Ok, so it is very much political. Similar principles are being used right now to punish supporters of Palestine under the guise of preventing anti-Semitism. Brief expressions of anger after a mass killing don't justify imprisoning someone. Edit: the enforcement is political, I mean. Basically, not all hate speech is treated equal, it depends on who the speech is about, and what concerns the government. In the US it was terrorism after 9/11 and opposition to Israel now. It sounds like in the UK right now it is anti-immigrant sentiment. At least in the US we have a strong First Amendment to protect us from the government policing our speech.
    - foldr 2y ago
      The tweet was posted elsewhere in this thread. It doesn’t express any political view. It just says hateful stuff. To your edit: If you’re making the comparison to anti-TERF “hate speech”, then it’s not treated equally because the law itself doesn’t treat racism on a par with anti-TERF sentiment. You can disagree with that, but it doesn’t show unequal policing of the law as-is.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  From OP's post, it wasn't treated as a crime. I would absolutely expect a background check to reveal statements like that, that people voluntarily, publicly post.

n4r9 2y ago

The context also needs to be noted. This was part of the social media storm that whipped up a wave of right-wing, racist hatred and violence in the wake of the Southport riots. No such waves of violence have sprung out of trans activism.

okeuro49 2y ago
There is no "far right" or people being "whipped up". Disorder is a consequence of failed government policy. E.g. from 2023: "Northern seaside town now a 'powder keg' over asylum seeker tensions" "The tension in Skegness has grown after hundreds of migrants from the Middle East, Africa and Albania were crammed into former tourist hotels on the seafront." "Cars have been vandalised, shop windows broken, mattresses set alight and scuffles reported between migrants and security staff. Officials say 229 asylum seekers are staying in up to seven hotels on and around the town’s promenade, but locals say the figure is more like 700."
- n4r9 2y ago
  > There is no "far right" or people being "whipped up". The wikipedia page about the riots has 127 mentions of "far-right" [0]. From the very start there were links between the protestors and organisations like the EDL. The online misinformation was spread by far-right influencers such Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins, and Andrew Tate, as well as a host of global right-wing accounts. The organisation Alliance4Europe which campaigns against online misinformation found that "non-domestic far-right groups played a significant role in inflaming tensions following the Southport murders" [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_riots [1] https://alliance4europe.eu/the-international-far-rights-impact-on-the-uk-southport-riots https://alliance4europe.eu/the-international-far-rights-impa...
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Far-right, unfortunately, is something of a trigger word suggesting Wikipedia is about to become unreliable in its coverage. As far as I can tell any suggestion that immigration levels should be low is likely to be a far-right position which means it is a very large tent. A tent that includes some undesirables and a lot of quite normal people. There is an odd situation where apparently countries can simultaneously adopt anti-growth policies while having an infinite surplus of real resources to handle more migrants and anyone who believes otherwise is de-facto attempting to restart the Jew ovens whether they personally deny it or not. Where a more charitable view would be if a country maintains high immigration into a situation where real resources don't grow that is quite possibly leading towards a genocide. People aren't all smiles and sunshine when times get tough; it is more sensible to engineer society towards prosperity.
    - n4r9 2y ago
      Not so; Keir Starmer is talking about cracking down on immigration and is certainly not far-right. You veer into the far-right when you dehumanise immigrants and use terms like "cockroaches", "Muslim invasion", or "great replacement".
      - roenxi 2y ago
        Keir Starmer is pushing [0] pretty standard far-right conspiracy theories about how the government was running an open-borders experiment, by design, in contravention of stated policies. > ...and is certainly not far-right. He's quacking like a duck. Talking about open borders is fair game for being identified as a dog whistler for people who believe in the great replacement theory - particularly when it is framed as duplicitous and intentional. I'd agree that it isn't, but once Wikipedia starts breaking out "far right" that is the sort of standard that can be applied. [0] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-migration-28-november-2024 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-migratio... - although humorously it is apparently standard practice to redact parts of speeches as political in a political speech given by a politician.
        2y ago
like_any_other 2y ago
You mean in the wake of the Southport child murder mass stabbing, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Southport_stabbings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Southport_stabbings
- n4r9 2y ago
  Yes. But specifically I'm referring to how a group of far-right social media accounts exploited that tragedy to whip up a violent frenzy of riots, starting with Southport.

tossandthrow 2y ago

> So people have been arrested for posting something online, even if nobody appears to have seen it, and they delete it shortly after. The message you are quoting is now being propagated,which is unfortunate. Most of the western world is moving to a risk based legal system and has a proportionaly measure build in. If the message in question had a limited reach, then it should not lead to a conviction. Just like we don't convict people who has inappropriate thoughts or write inappropriate things in their diary.

saagarjha 2y ago
I'm not sharing the message because it brings me joy to have it shown to more people. I think it's a pretty reprehensible thing to say. I'm sure people say worse into their personal diary or even among friends and that is not criminalized. I might possibly even consider the defense of "oh nobody really reads my posts anyway and I deleted it quickly". But I absolutely will not stand for trying to claim that the post was scare-quotes "hateful". It was hateful, full stop. This is not polite discourse that was unfairly marked as hate because of some political slant. It was clearly hate, even if wasn't seen by anyone, even if it got deleted.
- Saline9515 2y ago
  Hate is a normal thing in human societies. Freedom of speech also encompasses expressing hatred and negative feelings. What you can do to mitigate it is to solve the problems that create hate. In the case of the UK, addressing the mass-rapes of British girls, among other things. Sending people to prison for social media posts is a typical totalitarian move, similar to what you find in China, North Korea or Russia. None of the underlying issues are solved by intimidating your population, who, at some point, will just start to leave quietly.
  - foldr 2y ago
    Lots of countries outlaw hate speech. I know that Americans tend to think that this is a slippery slope to totalitarianism, but much of the rest of the world disagrees. And America in its present state isn't a great advertisment for its own particular model of public discourse and political freedom. Obviously, you can also be jailed in the US for social media posts that break the law. Here is one example: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer-douglass-mackey-sentenced-after-conviction-election https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer... It's tasteless to bring up rape cases that are irrelevant here. The tweet we're talking about was posted in the wake of the Southport stabbings. Nobody can seriously suggest that historical failures to investigate rape cases in Pakistani communities can be related to an outburst decades later about burning down hotels housing asylum seekers.

leereeves 2y ago

That certainly doesn't meet the threshold for a credible threat. It's a despicable thing to say, and it seems like even she realized that when she calmed down and deleted it. But what's the basis for treating it as a crime?

foldr 2y ago
It wasn’t prosecuted as a death threat, so it’s not really relevant whether or not the threat was credible. The relevant offense is inciting racial hatred.
- leereeves 2y ago
  Ok, so it is very much political. Similar principles are being used right now to punish supporters of Palestine under the guise of preventing anti-Semitism. Brief expressions of anger after a mass killing don't justify imprisoning someone. Edit: the enforcement is political, I mean. Basically, not all hate speech is treated equal, it depends on who the speech is about, and what concerns the government. In the US it was terrorism after 9/11 and opposition to Israel now. It sounds like in the UK right now it is anti-immigrant sentiment. At least in the US we have a strong First Amendment to protect us from the government policing our speech.
  - foldr 2y ago
    The tweet was posted elsewhere in this thread. It doesn’t express any political view. It just says hateful stuff. To your edit: If you’re making the comparison to anti-TERF “hate speech”, then it’s not treated equally because the law itself doesn’t treat racism on a par with anti-TERF sentiment. You can disagree with that, but it doesn’t show unequal policing of the law as-is.
ryandrake 2y ago
From OP's post, it wasn't treated as a crime. I would absolutely expect a background check to reveal statements like that, that people voluntarily, publicly post.