To not understand the JD Vance weird face meme all over the Cotswolds?

[BlueJuniper94]

So I understand he is not popular and has recently been holidaying in the Cotswolds. But I don't understand this big exaggerated AI face some group has been putting on billboards and driving around.

Firstly, are they mocking his appearance? That's not very nice, no matter what someone's politics are, their actions should be the target not what they look like.

And if it is about his remarks about free speech - again, I really don't understand how this image "owns" him, he's a foreign politician. UK gov aren't going to care about that, wouldn't it make sense to prove the point by criticising power that is actually British?

Fill me in please, I don't understand - what am I missing?

You saw the problem with hate speech law in your feminist movement. It was used to quell legitimate critiques of gender ideology and policy.

People in the US have been locked up for not having an immaculately manicured lawn too.

The tide has turned somewhat. But for a long time mumsnet was the only place. Without which, the movement wouldn't have made the progress is has. Sarah Pederson has written an excellent book about this.

When I encounter comments like yours I have two options: I can believe you genuinely believe this, and I can respond by listing numerous court cases and tribunals which have found in favour of women who have suffered very serious consequences for speaking in favour of women's rights. Consequences designed to silence anyone else who would risk saying the same.

Or I can doubt your sincerity, and believe people like you are typically participants in these disciplinary processes for women who you disagree with.

I'm erring on the later. I'd love to believe there was the potential for a good faith exchange to be had between us, but I suspect this optimism is misplaced, and that you don't care about the truth, whatever that may be. As such, it would be a waste of my time and yours. And both of us continue, further entrenched in our views.

But in practice, in the US right now, it seems to interpreted differently depending on who you support…

eg. You have the Vance meme on your phone or say something critical of the regime… you’re out. Or you’re certainly not in. Stephen Colbert has lost his job. That is not freedom of speech!

Yet others say utter rubbish and never get held to account.

Has a Labour Councillor today not been cleared of any wrong-doing for his 'cutting throats' speech? Can you explain the nuance here that I must be missing - because his case seems very similar to that of a high profile sentence given to a certain woman last year

Look at the treatment of women in the US.
Look at Project 2025.

It's not just the British who hate him, by the way. He was hounded out of a town in Vermont:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxqnxw6z73o

He wasn't popular when he went to Disneyland either:
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jd-vance-disneyland-protest-b2787969.html

How is it similar?

Okaaaay 😂

To be fair, Trump's golf trips cost more. In fact Trump has been charging the US taxpayer for his bodyguards to use the facilities (accommodation, transport) at the golf resort he owns.

We don’t have free speech. Access to Wikipedia is going to be restricted shortly. People are in jail for things they tweeted.

I quite agree. It should be a free for all, no holds barred society.

lol!!

Some US visa types require social media profiles to be disclosed, and the ESTA has a question about it social media profiles which, although optional, in true US style it’s not necessarily obvious to all that it is optional. Even if you don’t disclose it, as you say, immigration can still ask. And to many in real free countries that seems like an overreach reach - a little too ‘thought police’ for a proper democracy!

I don’t know the labour councillor thing.

but I would think the “nuance” is the speech of the woman sentenced contibuted to mass riots, public disorder and violence.

as far as I’m aware, there haven’t been any incidents of incitement to go out throat cutting as a result of whatever the labour councillor said.

the bar for is high for this. You need to prove harm result from your speech.

We do. It just isn't enshrined in a constitution we don't have

Who’s in jail for things they tweeted? Apart from the one woman who’s tweet actually contributed to acts of disorder and violence and therefor caused harm.

Wikipedia being restricted? Come on now.

We can’t incite violence or hatred of others. I don’t want a society where people can do that

If you tweet things that incite others to burn down buildings with people in them then you deserve to be in jail.

I mean Nigel Farage

As a dual national, the USA is shocking to a lot of Americans. You don't speak for everyone, and "free speech" is vastly over-rated when it consists of "You can't have an abortion". "Freedom" is in the eye of the beholder, and the USA is handing over its freedoms to an insanely misogynistic elite of right wingers.

Do let us know when you have finished doctoring the Epstein files for release, won't you?

To be fair to @CharmingDryad they didn't really express support either way. Cultural differences are sometimes shocking. Saying so is just acknowledging a point of stress. Not the same as saying the other culture is wrong (as Vanceyboy has).

Of course we do. The GC crowd have won all their lawsuits to date. That's how legislation develops in the UK.

So you can say what you want - and those who disagree with you can voice their disagreement. That's how it works.

What we don't have is free speech without limit or challenge. But then, nor does the US.

Plenty of hate speech comes from both sides in that debate. As far as I can see, they're every bit as bad as each other, whilst people who just want to get on and live in peace get stuck in the crossfire.

That’s not what they did though.

they made an incorrect statement.

so they’re basing their shock on “cultural differences” that don’t exist.

bit like me saying I’m shocked that no one in the us can show their ankles. Not saying it’s wrong, or expressing support either way, just acknowledging a point of stress.