There is no free speech in Finland

[213374U]

Boredom?

[Purkake]

Cheap Estonian/Russian alcohol?

[Morgoth]

Well I don't know nothing about Scandinavian culture, but I heard the weather and thus the alcohol are responsible for the gloomy mood.

 

We Austrians on the other side don't need excessive amounts of alcohol to make arses out of ourselves.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Morgoth

[Humodour]

That requires the people to actually posses some rudimentary critical thinking skills and the ability to take a step back and look at things objectively, which a lot of people seem to lack.

Agreed. I can't help but wonder, though: is that a sad fact of life or merely a consequence of thought railroading and opinion manipulation? Stuff like censorship is actually conducive to widespread stupidification. It is through analysis that truth is uncovered.

 

I think it comes down to most people not caring and/or blindly following someone more charismatic with whatever agenda, because it is easier.

 

I think that's entirely cultural, if it's true at all. Charismatic isn't a word I'd use to describe Howard, Keating, Rudd, or Hawke, for example. In fact Rudd is probably one of the most boring and nerdy leaders Australia's had, and he also has the highest consistent approval rating of them all at about 65% favourable. I also think it's presumptive of you to assume that you are one of a privileged few who votes on issues rather than personality - I think you'll find in you're not so special.

 

The majority that should balance out the extremes is so tired with the crazy antics that they don't vote or want to argue with the more extreme people.

 

The don't vote? I am forever thankful for compulsory voting here.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Krezack

[kirottu]

I don

[Purkake]

That requires the people to actually posses some rudimentary critical thinking skills and the ability to take a step back and look at things objectively, which a lot of people seem to lack.

Agreed. I can't help but wonder, though: is that a sad fact of life or merely a consequence of thought railroading and opinion manipulation? Stuff like censorship is actually conducive to widespread stupidification. It is through analysis that truth is uncovered.

 

I think it comes down to most people not caring and/or blindly following someone more charismatic with whatever agenda, because it is easier.

 

I think that's entirely cultural, if it's true at all. Charismatic isn't a word I'd use to describe Howard, Keating, Rudd, or Hawke, for example. In fact Rudd is probably one of the most boring and nerdy leaders Australia's had, and he also has the highest consistent approval rating of them all at about 65% favourable. I also think it's presumptive of you to assume that you are one of a privileged few who votes on issues rather than personality - I think you'll find in you're not so special.

 

The majority that should balance out the extremes is so tired with the crazy antics that they don't vote or want to argue with the more extreme people.

 

The don't vote? I am forever thankful for compulsory voting here.

 

I never said I was somehow superior. The problem is usually there not being any really good choices so you have to choose the best of the bad ones.

 

I don't think compulsory voting would go too well over here. Apparently it's a valid form of protest to not vote.

[HoonDing]

So, is the Finnish flag already being burnt throughout the Muslim world?

[Purkake]

So, is the Finnish flag already being burnt throughout the Muslim world?

 

Did they actually burn the Danish flag? From the clips I've seen they usually have a bunch of American ones ready to go, but have to improvise when some other country pisses them off.

[213374U]

In fact Rudd is probably one of the most boring and nerdy leaders Australia's had, and he also has the highest consistent approval rating of them all at about 65% favourable.

By itself, that means very little. Just that people won't always follow the most charismatic leader, but that's hardly news.

 

 

The don't vote? I am forever thankful for compulsory voting here.

You are not big on individual freedoms and tolerance, are you?

[Humodour]

In fact Rudd is probably one of the most boring and nerdy leaders Australia's had, and he also has the highest consistent approval rating of them all at about 65% favourable.

By itself, that means very little. Just that people won't always follow the most charismatic leader, but that's hardly news.

 

Except it's the norm here and I find little evidence to suggest it's all that different anywhere else (save the more undeveloped authoritarian states like Russia).

 

The don't vote? I am forever thankful for compulsory voting here.

You are not big on individual freedoms and tolerance, are you?

 

I'm extremely big on freedoms and tolerance when they make sense and are worth it (e.g. free speech, secular society, sexual liberty, freedom of expression, drug decriminalisation/legalisation, etc). You, however, seem quite big on issues being black and white. "Oh, he supports compulsory voting, that must mean he wants to remove all freedoms". Way to go numbers.

 

I'd prefer to keep my democracy as intact and efficient as possible than give people the right not to cop a $30 fine for not voting every 3 or 4 years. Invalid or defaced votes are not illegal so protesting is still perfectly possible if one is convinced it accomplishes something (about 5% of voters per election). But hey, continue on about how that's 'coercion' from the 'state' which will inevitably lead to totalitarianism or some rot like that. Australia's been doing fine on it for almost a century now, though.

 

I imagine that, in your eyes, I am also a horrendous authoritarian socialist for supporting gun control or income tax.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Krezack

[Purkake]

I imagine that, in your eyes, I am also a horrendous authoritarian socialist for supporting gun control.

 

I'm all for gun control.

 

I don't think that forcing people who don't care/want to vote is a good idea. Is voting randomly/ruining the ballot any better than not voting at all?

 

It's more about the culture, if people see voting as their civil duty they'll do it regardless of whether it is compulsory or not, if they don't want to, they will just ruin the ballot. I don't see the advantage here.

[Istima Loke]

...

 

I'd prefer to keep my democracy as intact and efficient as possible than give people the right not to cop a $30 fine for not voting every 3 or 4 years. Invalid or defaced votes are not illegal so protesting is still perfectly possible if one is convinced it accomplishes something (about 5% of voters per election). But hey, continue on about how that's 'coercion' from the 'state' which will inevitably lead to totalitarianism or some rot like that. Australia's been doing fine on it for almost a century now, though.

 

Yes, but invalid and defaced votes can be a protest against the political parties that are given as choices to vote for. Not voting can be a protest against the process of voting itself. I'm not going to comment on whether that's good or bad since we're already kind of off topic.

[213374U]

Except it's the norm here and I find little evidence to suggest it's all that different anywhere else (save the more undeveloped authoritarian states like Russia).

And your point is? That the Australian democratic community is a shining example of how democracy is infallible?

 

Get over yourself. I asked for French chauvinism, not Australian.

 

 

 

I'm extremely big on freedoms and tolerance when they make sense and are worth it (e.g. free speech, secular society, sexual liberty, freedom of expression, drug decriminalisation/legalisation, etc).

rofl

 

You are big on freedoms when you are big on freedoms. Either you support personal choice as far as political outlook goes, or you don't, it's that simple.

 

Funny that you are quick to remark how others are not "all that special", and yet you feel qualified to establish which personal freedoms "make sense" and which don't. I mean, it's so obvious, you don't even need to explain yourself.

 

 

I'd prefer to keep my democracy as intact and efficient as possible than give people the right not to cop a $30 fine for not voting every 3 or 4 years. Invalid or defaced votes are not illegal so protesting is still perfectly possible if one is convinced it accomplishes something (about 5% of voters per election).

Yes, I see the problem now. I think personal freedoms take precedence over the efficiency of any given political system. Apparently, it's the other way around for you.

 

 

But hey, continue on about how that's 'coercion' from the 'state' which will inevitably lead to totalitarianism or some rot like that.

You mean it's not coercion from the state? Then what is it, pray tell?

[Walsingham]

Couple of thoughts:

 

- For a writer, getting 30 days in hookie is as good a career boost as any

- It seems a little harsh BUT it's not as if no-one knew about the law

- hateful propaganda is as much a part of extremist violence as ground glass or hydrogen peroxide

[Gorgon]

How about 5 years in the slammer for suggesting the pope would get boinked up the arse by 'very active homosexual devils' once he died.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/f...icle4732048.ece

 

This was in response to the popes position on contraception which is hurting AIDS campaigns in developing nations, and various other reactionary backwardsness after Ratzinger took office, or was appointed by god or whatever they call it.

[Rostere]

Cheap Estonian/Russian alcohol?

 

I lol'd. Although you forgot Latvia

[Purkake]

Cheap Estonian/Russian alcohol?

 

I lol'd. Although you forgot Latvia

 

Nah, that's too far away

[Rostere]

Cheap Estonian/Russian alcohol?

 

I lol'd. Although you forgot Latvia

 

Nah, that's too far away

 

No destination is too far away when you can travel there by boat for almost no money at all while drinking cheap Russian/Estonian/Latvian vodka.

[213374U]

- hateful propaganda is as much a part of extremist violence as ground glass or hydrogen peroxide

A clever way of putting it. Without propaganda, there can be no hate-induced violence. However, propaganda itself is not violence (and therefore cannot be considered part) - and the jump from one to another is neither automatic nor trivial. It is, in fact, the circumstances that allow for propaganda to be widespread and believable, coupled with ignorance, that lead to violence.

 

For a similarly equivocating effect I could just as easily say that air is as much a part of an arsonist's arsenal as gas.

Edited September 9, 2009 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

- hateful propaganda is as much a part of extremist violence as ground glass or hydrogen peroxide

A clever way of putting it. Without propaganda, there can be no hate-induced violence. However, propaganda itself is not violence (and therefore cannot be considered part) - and the jump from one to another is neither automatic nor trivial. It is, in fact, the circumstances that allow for propaganda to be widespread and believable, coupled with ignorance, that lead to violence.

 

For a similarly equivocating effect I could just as easily say that air is as much a part of an arsonist's arsenal as gas.

 

I see it like that old standby, the fire safety triangle. You need fuel AND oxygen AND heat. If any one bit is missing then no fire. It's no good fuel saying 'it's not my fault since there wouldn't be a problem if THAT guy, oxygen hadn't gotten involved'. In this case since we're looking at it, I'd suggest the extremist triangle consists of rationale (supplied by propaganda), weapons, and um... donkeys (this may need some work). Targeting weapons is accepted intervention. Why not rationale? Or donkeys?

[Gorth]

So, is the Finnish flag already being burnt throughout the Muslim world?

 

Did they actually burn the Danish flag? From the clips I've seen they usually have a bunch of American ones ready to go, but have to improvise when some other country pisses them off.

They did more than that. Although, as you said, in the beginning they didn't have any danish flags (the stores only keep Israeli and US flags in stock), so they had to improvise with paper and crayons. Didn't take long for them to get proper danish flags to burn though. Then came the violence, tens of thousands of protestors, attacks on consulates and embassies, scores of dead and wounded, a significant dollar loss (significant for a small country that is) of exports, having to explain to the Norwegians why their bases in Afghanistan got attacked too (because they didn't know that there was any difference)

[213374U]

I see it like that old standby, the fire safety triangle. You need fuel AND oxygen AND heat. If any one bit is missing then no fire. It's no good fuel saying 'it's not my fault since there wouldn't be a problem if THAT guy, oxygen hadn't gotten involved'. In this case since we're looking at it, I'd suggest the extremist triangle consists of rationale (supplied by propaganda), weapons, and um... donkeys (this may need some work). Targeting weapons is accepted intervention. Why not rationale? Or donkeys?

How do you "target" rationales, hmm? Weapons, you can ban, jail those who sell them, whatever. It's pretty simple. Ideas, on the other hand are a much more difficult component to root out, and it's extremely easy to go overboard. Propaganda is often based on outright falsehood, but not always. The difference between hateful propaganda and inflammatory political discourse is a matter of pov, in many cases. And who are going to appoint to tell which pov is the right one? Or do we rely on "consensus"? Bah.

 

Once the fire is on, it may be a good idea to choke it out. But it's a pretty stupid idea to try and eliminate the oxygen in the air to prevent fires.

[Walsingham]

I see it like that old standby, the fire safety triangle. You need fuel AND oxygen AND heat. If any one bit is missing then no fire. It's no good fuel saying 'it's not my fault since there wouldn't be a problem if THAT guy, oxygen hadn't gotten involved'. In this case since we're looking at it, I'd suggest the extremist triangle consists of rationale (supplied by propaganda), weapons, and um... donkeys (this may need some work). Targeting weapons is accepted intervention. Why not rationale? Or donkeys?

How do you "target" rationales, hmm? Weapons, you can ban, jail those who sell them, whatever. It's pretty simple. Ideas, on the other hand are a much more difficult component to root out, and it's extremely easy to go overboard. Propaganda is often based on outright falsehood, but not always. The difference between hateful propaganda and inflammatory political discourse is a matter of pov, in many cases. And who are going to appoint to tell which pov is the right one? Or do we rely on "consensus"? Bah.

 

 

Really? And I would argue that to a degree the NRA have a point. Billions of arms are in use worlwide or in storage that are never used unlawfully. It takes a criminal to use it unlawfully. Why should lawful users be denied their right to fire their arms in any way that doesn't result in actual harm?

 

Once the fire is on, it may be a good idea to choke it out. But it's a pretty stupid idea to try and eliminate the oxygen in the air to prevent fires.

 

Not really. Very sensitive systems, or sources of extremely potent fuel are often kept in neutral atmospheres like nitrogen.

[213374U]

Really? And I would argue that to a degree the NRA have a point. Billions of arms are in use worlwide or in storage that are never used unlawfully. It takes a criminal to use it unlawfully. Why should lawful users be denied their right to fire their arms in any way that doesn't result in actual harm?

Okay, explain to me how that relates to the discussion we're having, because you have managed to lose me. Seriously, I don't think we're arguing the same thing. You are trying to establish a connection between "targeting illegitimate weapon sales is perfectly fair" and "therefore targeting illegitimate ideas should be too, since they are a necessary component in hate-induced violence". I'm saying that that is a sophism, as there are no illegitimate ideas. Only wrong ideas. The a difference between the two is deeper than semantics - it rules out any state interdiction. Unless being wrong is a crime?

 

 

Not really. Very sensitive systems, or sources of extremely potent fuel are often kept in neutral atmospheres like nitrogen.

You are grasping at straws, and you know it. You don't eliminate the oxygen in the air everywhere to prevent fire and explosions. You do so in certain, very specific circumstances. Just like you don't allow political displays in a certain few cases (such as the military). You are arguing against propaganda (a certain rationale) across the board... the equivalent of banning oxygen. What I want to know is what is your threshold for "targeting propaganda"? Be as specific as you can, please. And tell me how'd we go about dealing with it, as well.

[Walsingham]

Really? And I would argue that to a degree the NRA have a point. Billions of arms are in use worlwide or in storage that are never used unlawfully. It takes a criminal to use it unlawfully. Why should lawful users be denied their right to fire their arms in any way that doesn't result in actual harm?

Okay, explain to me how that relates to the discussion we're having, because you have managed to lose me. Seriously, I don't think we're arguing the same thing. You are trying to establish a connection between "targeting illegitimate weapon sales is perfectly fair" and "therefore targeting illegitimate ideas should be too, since they are a necessary component in hate-induced violence". I'm saying that that is a sophism, as there are no illegitimate ideas. Only wrong ideas. The a difference between the two is deeper than semantics - it rules out any state interdiction. Unless being wrong is a crime?

 

Being wrong (in the context of the collective state) is the definition of crime, surely? And while I have no option but to accept that intellectually there are no illegitimate ideas, wanting to force - for example - all coloured people into death camps is something I'm comfortable defining as illegitimate. Call me reactionary and take away my monocle.

 

 

Not really. Very sensitive systems, or sources of extremely potent fuel are often kept in neutral atmospheres like nitrogen.

You are grasping at straws, and you know it. You don't eliminate the oxygen in the air everywhere to prevent fire and explosions. You do so in certain, very specific circumstances. Just like you don't allow political displays in a certain few cases (such as the military). You are arguing against propaganda (a certain rationale) across the board... the equivalent of banning oxygen. What I want to know is what is your threshold for "targeting propaganda"? Be as specific as you can, please. And tell me how'd we go about dealing with it, as well.

 

Strictly speaking, yes, if you took away oxygen completely you wouldn't have any fire. That's a win. But I'm not arguing for the total elimination of all ideas. I'm arguing for the removal of ideas oriented on a specific goal - inducing hate. This strikes me as no more absurd as removing arms from people fire them in the direction of people.