Peter Andre on GB News

[Laughattheloons]

This has thrown me. I’ve just seen a TikTok about it. Obviously not a Peter fan but always just assumed he was a decent good guy. Clearly not. I can never ironic Mysterious Girl again

My beloved Morning Star ('Peace & Socialism') has been uncompromising and unrelenting on the importance of women's rights and children's safeguarding, continuing to recognise the biological sex class of women as a crucial category of political analysis and change.

The UK is very different from the US.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/gender-identity-services-have-failed-children-and-young-people-report-finds

@Elber We're not going to agree on whether blocking people on twitter is contradictory with a belief in free speech.
Other than that I completely agree with getting your news from a variety of sources, and I'd agree that language like melts and snowflakes (and I'd add gammons or flippant use of "fascist") aren't very helpful (but neither would I be massively upset if they were deployed at me).

I'm not sure of the equivalence between gammon & the host of slurs used by the right. Slurs deployed by a well financed network of alt-right organisations are polluting political discourse on another level entirely.

Coming to a celeb near you soon

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/roseanne-barr-pushed-qanon-blood-drinking-conspiracy-at-kari-lake-s-mar-a-lago-event/vi-BB1l4RK6

Well yes! Blocking someone, so you can't hear/see something, isn't the same as deplatforming or trying to outright ban someone. The speech in question is still being allowed to 'exist'!

@Jumpingthruhoops

Exist, but censored in the sphere of the commentator who is championing free speech??

“Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.”

How about if Andrew Marr blocked all vegan advocates from his Twitter account, vented his frustration at the policing/undermining/censoring of free speech in the UK - and then hosted a segment on ‘best diets’. I think his credibility would be - quite rightly - questioned…

The definition of censorship you cite means exactly what I said: it refers speech/people officially being banned or cancelled, like I believe, say, Kathleen Stock was at the Oxford Union.

People are allowed to not want to hear her speak, so they can totally block her from appearing on their own personal SM feed or switch channels when she appears on TV - but they don't have the right to stop her speaking altogether.

As the saying goes: 'I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it'.

THAT is free speech.

Yes I think we're all equally concerned about the pissed-up-90s-sitcom-star-ranting-about-democrat-baby-blood-drinking situation. I feel reassured knowing you're keeping an eye on it.
If it escalates to the point where the any of the cast of Cheers gets involved, please let us all know.

@Jumpingthruhoops

I'd say that’s more your interpretation. The definition states ‘retaliation’. Which to me would be interpreted an action to block an action that was disliked. Censorship which to me means the suppression of a view (in this case through blocking). All the way through to an outright official ban. It’s a sliding scale.
The definition does not refer merely to an ‘outright ban’.
And this behaviour is from a commentator championing free speech.

If he - and his like - get more power, then this particular interpretation of supposed ‘free speech’ will be used to suppress/block/censor the views of certain sectors of society in a very unjust, hypocritical and unbalanced way.

It’s that age old situation where we all agree with the ethos of free speech, that it’s good for society : but then the powerful manipulate its definition to suit their ideologies.

And because we get sucked in by a need for change, their charisma, our need to believe and identify with something - we permit them to move the goalposts.

Well, no, not really, that's YOUR interpretation. I'm just explaining what that definition actually means.
No interpretation required.

@Jumpingthruhoops

I’m not reading anything below that says Freedom of Speech gives individuals/communities to articulate opinions without fear of legal ban, however blocking, censoring or suppressing a view is completely unrelated to freedom of speech.

“Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.”

It clearly states retaliation, censorship or legal ban.

Your interpretation appears to relate purely to the ‘legal ban’ with any other form of censorship fully permitted.

To quote “Although self-imposed, the echo chamber is as serious a barrier to free expression of (and free access to) ideas as any commercial or government actions.”

@Elber give it up. Your mixing of concepts makes you sound like one of those people who gets "health and safety" mixed up with "political correctness".

No amount of torturing the English language will make people not wanting to listen to someone else censorship.

You think blocking someone on twitter is anti-freedom of speech? Well consider all the people who don't even have a twitter account. They are in practice blocking everyone. Millions of people of every political persuasion, completely powerless to convince your Great Aunt Doris that sex is bimodal or Star Trek is better than Quantum Leap. We should probably force everyone to join twitter to stop this authoritarian nonsense right?

C'mon, we've already got the Coast guy and Eamonn Holmes & his 5g.

There's a world of difference between an organically emergent insult to a co-ordinated narrative pushed by powerful alliances. Both in terms of reach & damage to political discoures.

No amount of torturing the English language will make people not wanting to listen to someone else censorship.

This! 🎯

@Sillypede Haha. I know the coast guy but I didn't know Eamonn Holmes was also a nutter. I think I remember him saying he can never sleep because he drinks a crate of pepsi max every day, which probably doesn't do well for anyone's grip on reality.

I think US political discourse has been dire for a very long time. I think we are heading towards that kind of polarisation here which I think is regrettable. But that's one of the reasons I don't love the use of woke/snowflake/gammon/karen etc. Yes they're not the most offensive terms, but I don't think they bring out the best in people. (And some of us are naturally snarky enough in discussions already without being wound up by low level terms of abuse)

@Underthinker

Give it up?? I think you are the one mixing up concepts to a hysterical degree.

And your Twitter analogy there is totally ridiculous.

Most of the UK aren’t obsessed by blocking people on Twitter and think GB News is garbage. They’ve got far better things to do.

While your hypocritical ‘hero’ championing free speech is tweeting away, blocking away all those voices he doesn’t like with his fingers in his ears.

It’s just purile, childish, nonsense. But if that’s what floats your boat!

Did make me think how Peter Andre is well suited to GB news. His music is crap. I’m just trying to think of a decent, respected musical artist who’d think GB News would be career highlight. Nope they’d give it a wide berth…

@Elber

Give it up?? I think you are the one mixing up concepts to a hysterical degree. And your Twitter analogy there is totally ridiculous.
Sure

Most of the UK aren’t obsessed by blocking people on Twitter and think GB News is garbage. They’ve got far better things to do.
Sucks to be us arguing about it then.

Kathleen Stock wasn't banned or cancelled by the Oxford Union, they invited her to speak. She was temporarily disrupted by protesters.

That isn't Free Speech. For example, there shouldn't be a right for holocaust deniers to be teaching our students.

@Sillypede Can I just point out you took exception when I compared the use of terms "melt & snowflake" (usually by the right) to use of the term "gammon" or "Karen" (usually by the left) . Which IMO are pretty closely comparable.

While you are quite happy to compare Kathleen Stock's legally protected and completely sensible gender critical beliefs with holocaust denial.

Absolutely. Probably best not to give Mr Silly the attention he obviously craves. He doesn't half chat some utter shite.

I didn't, beyond giving an example of how in in our system rights come with duties/responsibilities. I have a right to drive a car, but a duty not to drive it irresponsibly.

They're clearly very different. As I pointed out. The anti-progessive slurs from the right are perpetuated by established networks of alt-right organisations & are part of the language of the Republican magas & our own right- wing Tories. They make up 65% of every comment Lee Anderson makes.

How is Karen a slur used predominantly by the left? It seems to me to be used pretty indiscriminately to exclusively refer to women's actions that somebody objects to & almost always is just base misogyny.

None of these words really mean the same thing.

Snowflake is potentially rude, but the comparison is to something that is ephemeral. So it's an accusation of being rather fragile, which could apply potentially to anyone.

"Woke" is a description of a belief system, like fascist. It's a rather informal one, but a lot of people don't know a more accurate descriptor, so even if you use one they won't understand. It's probably inherently slightly negative, because it's implying self-righteousness, but it's describing an actual set of beliefs that can be held by anyone.

Gammon is describing a set of beliefs, but saying they are about being a white blowhard male, the implication being that because they are from a white male, they are bad ideas. You'd never call, say, an Asian woman gammon, even if she believed the same things. That's why it's racist,

And actually lots of non-male, and non-white people do believe the same kinds of things, so it's not even a real connection.

Why the Hell not?

If the Oxford Union wanted to invite such a person, they are allowed to do so. It's not up to other students to prevent it - if they don't want to hear such a person, they don't need to attend.