FtttG
User ID: 1175
I understand where you're coming from and I don't think you expressed yourself rudely, but this entire comment seems very "boo outgroup" to me. "It's pointless pointing out that your enemies are violating their own principles because they have no principles: the only appropriate response to their lies and deceit is to destroy them and ground them into dust" - I mean, it's fair to say this doesn't pass the intellectual Turing test, now does it?
Of course I'll never persuade the person who wrote that Waterford Whispers post about McGregor that they're being hypocritical, but I think there are people on the margin who could be persuaded that the way the news media covers crime is a bit dishonest and demand them to change accordingly.
On the topic of Conor, this was a civil proceeding, not a criminal proceeding where a girl retroactively took back her consent. I am not sure if we can even call him a rapist legally since he did not serve time in jail
Legally McGregor cannot be called a rapist, having never been found guilty of rape in a criminal trial. But while the burden of proof may be lower in a civil proceeding than in a criminal trial, it's not nothing. OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder in a criminal trial, found guilty of murder in a civil proceeding, and now no one feels bad about calling him a murderer, even if news media avoided doing so during his lifetime to avoid getting sued for defamation. I'm applying the same standard to McGregor, who I think is exceptionally unlikely to sue me for defamation or to firebomb my house.
FtttG
2yr ago
The figurative use of the term "cuck" is essentially just a dysphemism for calling someone a "doormat". The assumption is that men who allow their wives to have sex with other men aren't really okay with it, but go along with it due to a lack of backbone and an inability to establish boundaries for themselves. This obviously generalises (no one was fooled that "bike cuck" really didn't mind his bike getting stolen).
Why aren't novels' word counts common knowledge?
Go on IMDb, look up the pilot episode of an obscure American sitcom which was cancelled after one season, and you will find its duration in minutes (a single, objective measure of how long it will take to consume that piece of media). Go on Wikipedia, look up Blade Runner and it will list the various durations of all the various theatrically released cuts, directors' cuts and so on. Any album noteworthy enough to have its own Wikipedia page will have its duration listed in minutes and seconds, broken down by individual track duration (including the duration of various special/bonus editions). If it isn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia, it will be on Rate Your Music.
Meanwhile, if you want to find out how long it will take you to read a book, Wikipedia might tell you the page count, which is next to useless given how many variables contribute to it: font, font size, page size, margin width and height, formatting decisions (a novel which uses numerous paragraph breaks will take up more pages than a novel of the same word count which uses them sparingly; putting a page break before the start of a new chapter can easily add ten pages to a novel's length; because of its bizarre formatting, House of Leaves's word count is probably 25-40% shorter than its massive page count would imply). Various editions of the same unabridged novel with the exact same wording can have enormous variation in how many pages they take up (e.g. this edition of Moby-Dick is 768 pages, while this one is 608). Last night I Googled "Finnegan's Wake word count", one of the most widely discussed novels of the twentieth century, and the first result was one of these automated websites which calculates an estimate of the word count based on the page count (under the rule of thumb that 1 page = 250 words).
I'm not asking for anyone to laboriously go through the process of counting each word by hand. Finnegan's Wake can be purchased as an ebook, which means its contents have been digitised. If you want to find out the word count, all you have to do is open the text file/EPUB file/AZW file and check. Presumably somewhere in the region of 99% of all novels composed in this century were composed using a word processor, meaning the word counts were known (or at least trivially knowable) to the author, publisher, typesetter etc. well in advance of publication.
Before you book to see a film in the cinema, you'd want to know how long it is so you can plan your day accordingly, so cinemas always include this information (although not, annoyingly, the duration of ads and trailers prior to the movie - state Congress to the rescue!). No one would accept a vague ambiguous proxy for the duration of a film like "there are 1,300 cuts in this film" or "there are 30 scenes in this film" - how long is a "scene"? By the same token, before you start reading a book, you generally want to have some kind of idea of how long it will take you to read it. The publisher has access to an objective measure of the book's length (its word count) but refuses to make this information public, instead relying on a vague proxy for its length which is prone to error and can prove enormously misleading. Why is this?
R/HermanCainAward? Good content.
Revolting.
Was/were? That joke would honestly kill if it were told at a drag show.
A testament to how remedial drag humour is.
I think it's fair to acknowledge fat activists aren't just fantasizing about the shortcomings of the medical system. Doctors can sometimes focus on obesity at the expense of other issues. I've personally seen an obese family member's tumor go undiagnosed for a troubling amount of time, because the doctors all assumed her symptoms were weight-related. But I'm skeptical of the activist framing that this is all due to fat oppression and discrimination. Rather, doctors begin with the simpler or more common explanation, and obesity is a) very common and b) affects almost all body systems.
This is the standard "chasing zebras" narrative in medicine, and I've honestly never given it much serious consideration. We might hear about the odd obese person whose health problems were caused by something unrelated to their weight and carelessly overlooked by a GP, but for every one I'm sure there are at least 100 cases where the GP's snap diagnosis was right on the money. It seems the height of narcissism to demand that healthcare professionals disregard their training and ignore statistical fact (in fact, to demand that healthcare professionals administer substandard care to their patients) just because it makes some of them feel sad. (See also trans activists, who demand that healthcare professionals waste hundreds of man-hours asking 6-foot tall, bearded, broad-shouldered people if they are or have been pregnant recently.)
It's also demeaning to feel like you're in for a scolding every time you interact with the medical system, and this can discourage people from getting checked out.
Sure, but the same is true of smokers, drinkers, drug addicts etc. and no one expects me to take the Alcoholic Acceptance movement seriously or check my Drinks-In-Moderation Privilege.
FtttG
2yr ago
Another example: "Rape victim." For the purposes of access to rape counseling services, "rape victim" is often defined as anyone who thinks she has been raped, even if, objectively, she has not been. The key there is "for the purposes of access to rape counseling services"; apparently, those who make such decisions deem it sound public policy to define membership in the group, "rape victim" to be based purely on self-identification.
I don't think this is analogous at all. By your argument, rape counselling services are defining "rape victim" more or less as follows: "a rape victim is a person who believes that they were orally, vaginally or anally penetrated without their consent". The term is defined by reference to a specific factual belief the individual in question does or does not hold (without passing judgement on whether that belief is true).
By contrast, "a woman is a person who identifies as a woman" tells you exactly nothing about what the term "woman" means. It is, as /u/arjin_ferman points out, recursive: "a woman is a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a..."
Hypothetically, if Canada did become the 51st state, would I be right in saying it would be the largest state in the union by landmass by quite a huge margin? Or am I too Mercator-projection pilled?
Seems like a terrible idea from a Republican standpoint: adding ~30 million new voters to your electorate, 80%+ of whom can be assumed to be reliable Democrat voters.
Also worth pointing out that in his first term, Trump became the first POTUS in decades not to start any new wars, so his track record is pretty respectable on that front at least. Unless we're talking about peaceful annexation, whatever that might look like.
FtttG
5mo ago
Europeans have fought battles on battle fields for thousands of years with a strong aversion to harming civilians, punishing prisoners and acting in a non-chivalrous manor.
Since densely populated urban centres have become commonplace, how many Europeans have comported themselves in such a manner in wartime? There was plenty of deliberate bombing of exclusively civilian targets on the part of the Allies in the second world war, for example (Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki). Likewise the deliberate bombing of villages by Americans in the Vietnam war. Evidently this "cowardly and brutal" fighting style is not unique to Jews.
And that's not even addressing the obvious point, that civilian collateral damage is literally unavoidable when engaged in a conflict with a belligerent which employs guerrilla warfare tactics and uses civilians as human shields, fully anticipating - even hoping - that they will get caught in the crossfire.
Conor got accused in the past in Miami too
Doesn't the fact that McGregor has been accused of sexual misconduct by so many different women, completely independently, in different countries or even continents move the needle for you at all? Isn't this exactly why people are so confident that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator, despite (to the best of my knowledge) never having been found guilty even in a civil proceeding?
hypocrisy is not a bad thing
You've lost me there buddy. If at any point you find yourself thinking "my enemies are so vicious that I must preemptively become more vicious than them before they destroy me outright", I think it's worth taking a step back and asking yourself if that's an accurate appraisal of the state of affairs, or if you're just coming up with some half-baked ham-handed rationalisation to do something you know is bad but want to do anyway. Note that your reasoning is word for word the same as that employed by woke people to justify deplatforming, cancelling or beating up conservatives.
Moldbug has echoed similar sentiments and I stand by them
I have never understood the appeal of Moldbug or why he's considered such an intellectual giant. So many of his allegedly profound insights just seem like trite (or even tautological) truisms dressed up with needlessly circomlocutory or obfuscatory language. I think Scott hit the nail on the head with Moldbug's whole approach in 2013:
Reactionaries have to walk a fine line. They can’t just say “people consider liberal policies, decide they would be helpful, and form grassroots movements pushing for the policies they support”, because that would make leftist policies sound like reasonable ideas pursued by decent people for normal human motives.
But they can’t just say “There’s a giant conspiracy where the heads of all the major Ivy League universities meet at midnight under the full moon”, because that would sound ridiculous and tinfoilish.
So they invent this strange creature, the distributed conspiracy. It’s not just people being convinced of something and then supporting it, it’s them conspiring to do so. Not the sort of conspiring where they talk to one another about it or coordinate. But still a conspiracy!
FtttG
1yr ago
I've heard this a lot, sometimes phrased as something like "well, 'birthing person' or 'menstruator' are more precise and accurate terms than 'mother' or 'woman', because #notallwomen menstruate, and some people who menstruate don't self-identify as women".
On the one hand, yes, strictly speaking I suppose the term "menstruator" is more "precise" than "woman". On the other hand, don't bullshit me - you're not promoting the use of this term because it's more precise or accurate than the previous standard. There are plenty of factually accurate assertions which have been known to drive trans activists into violent rages and/or floods of tears. A trans woman can't complain that it's extremely dysphoria-inducing to be described as "male", or for it to be pointed out that trans women are just as likely to be violent as cis men - and then turn around and say "we're just trying to use more accurate and precise language!"
Women are not a hive mind: it would be very surprising indeed if literally every woman in the entire world would be disgusted by Skookum as he currently exists. There's no accounting for taste: I routinely see an ugly and/or overweight man walking down the street holding hands with a plain or even attractive woman. Moreover, if a given woman is disgusted by @SkookumTree as he currently exists, I very much doubt that her opinion of him will significantly change once she learns that he went on a hike in Alaska. (If anything they might be even more repulsed: I can't imagine that spending two months completely alone without interacting with another soul will do much for the social skills of someone who already seems to consider himself rather socially awkward.) I wasn't asking why Skookum thinks (certain) women are disgusted by him - I was asking why he himself thinks that he's disgusting for merely wanting to be in a relationship. If he thinks that he's disgusting because he wants a relationship even though he hasn't "earned the right" to want one by proving his masculinity - well, that implies that the vast majority of modern men are disgusting, as most of us haven't fought in a war or gone hiking in Alaska or etc.. That includes most of the men who post on this site: I'm certainly not a hyper-masculine Chad, and I've never been to war or similar. If Skookum literally believes that any man who wants to be in a relationship without having proved his masculinity is "disgusting" and "hypocritical", I wish he would just come out and say "I am disgusting and hypocritical for wanting a relationship, and so are most of you", rather than dancing around the issue by self-pityingly asserting that he is disgusting and hypocritical, but dodging the question of who else is according to his metrics.
So, in times of modern plenty, and when women have more options outside of marriage and "settling," why not dispose of at least the worst of disposable males, or at least assist them in disposing of themselves?
Skookum is able-bodied, physically strong (able to deadlift a perfectly respectable 275 pounds and squat 245, the latter of which far exceeds my PR) and intelligent enough to be training to be a doctor. Any criteria of "the worst of the disposable males" which includes him would probably include you. And, based on your weird comment history, on the off-chance it turns out that you're really Skookum using an alt account, I will be very annoyed by the run-around.
Point taken, but the transhumanists will reasonably interject how contingent so much suffering is. They're entirely correct to note that technological solutions (vaccines, cochlear implants, glasses etc.) have largely obviated forms of suffering which affected vast swathes of the population even a few generations ago, and that it is reasonable to expect this trend to continue. Pain as a stimulus warning you off doing something which will injure or kill you is a relatively elegant evolutionary mechanism, but the modern WEIRD context in which the rate of premature violent death has plummeted to negligible levels really brings home how much of a hack it is in absolute terms (e.g. people who are bedridden for years because of chronic idiopathic back pain). It's not much of a reach to imagine how these particular kinds of suffering could be wholly negated in the near future. Your example about children afflicted with chronic insensitivity to pain and inadvertently gnawing off their own fingers is entirely valid, but it isn't remotely difficult to imagine a future in which small children are given e.g. brain implants so that they intuitively understand that they oughtn't do this without needing the pain stimulus.
All I know is that my friend was doing a rotation in child psychology and whenever one of her patients was a teenage boy who was having gender issues, she would think "so he's autistic and spends all his time playing Minecraft and watching anime". And she was always right.
I don't know why watching anime seems to set so many people on the trans pipeline, I just know that it does. I know that being trans and watching anime both have very large overlaps with autism (in both boys and girls). I also know that there is an awful lot of hentai which depicts extremely feminine and sexualised women who also have very large penises, which perhaps instils in teenaged boys unrealistic expectations for how their own transition will go.
FtttG
1yr ago
The other night my father rhetorically asked "I feel like asking Netanyahu, 'when has a terrorist group ever been defeated militarily?"
I immediately said "In Sri Lanka in 2009?" The reason it occurred to me was because of @CriticalDuty's write-up here.
Naturally, my father immediately commenced moving the goalposts of the question.
Out of curiosity, are there any other recent examples of terrorist groups being defeated militarily?
What I found really conspicious was that in virtually all the articles there was absolutely no description of the perpetrator of the stabbing other than 'man' or at best ' older man', which was the spark that cause the protest/riot (depending on your political persuasion). You'd be forgiven for thinking that the crime was committed by an Irish native.
The same here, only the tabloids and alternative media specified that the attacker was Algerian; "respectable" outlets like The Journal, the Times and the Independent don't consider his nationality or ethnicity worth mentioning at all. Whenever there's a horrible unprovoked crime like this, you can practically smell the "please let the assailant be Irish" energy emanating from broadsheet journalists and the PMC types on X and Reddit. I saw a comment about the stabbing on the /r/ireland subreddit, some dude said something to the effect of "Imagine hearing about a horrible crime like this and your first instinct is to wonder what colour the attacker's skin is. Despicable." You mean, exactly like you're doing right now?
Some years ago (probably on the old subreddit) I pointed out that this journalistic approach has a limited shelf life. Sooner or later, every reader will cotton on to the fact that whenever the MSM report on a violent crime committed by a white native man, his skin colour will be mentioned prominently (either in the headline or the lede); ergo, if you see an article about a violent crime which doesn't mention the assailant's skin colour or nationality, the only reasonable assumption is that he is black or Arab or Eastern European (optionally Muslim). (See also Scott's post, section IV, about how banning employers from asking interviewees about their criminal record actually decreased the rate at which employers hired black candidates.) They're going to have to come up with a different method for routing around this problem sooner or later. Perhaps five years from now, news articles will read "an assailant stabbed a victim" without mentioning any identity characteristics about either person at all.
Do they think by merely mentioning the background of the stabbing perpetrator they will give creedance to the 'hateful far-right riot', like invoking a spirit?
Well this is the thing: for modern broadsheet journalists, contempt for the common man is built into their psyche. If you've fully internalised the idea that any uneducated person can become radicalised overnight by exposure to far-right disinformation and "fake news" - well, imagine how much more potent an effect information and real news might have. The average journalist no longer sees their job as one of informing the public but educating it, and if that means selectively leaving the reader in the dark about certain pertinent facts, so be it. (Perhaps I'm being rather rose-tinted about journalistic standards in the past and this is all one big "always has been" meme.) Many journalists seem to think that even informing their readers what the Bad People believe is tantamount to signal-boosting their opinions, so they resort to this circuitous approach of informing the reader that Alice has transphobic™ opinions (or quoting a woke person who thinks Alice has transphobic opinions i.e. "delegated defamation") without actually telling the reader what those opinions are and allowing them to draw their own conclusions as to whether "transphobic" is an accurate characterisation.
FtttG
5mo ago
I know essentially nothing about investing, but I want to invest in a specific index fund. I understand I need to open an account with a broker to do this, and there are many brokers to choose from. Before selecting a broker, how do I know that I'll be able to invest in that specific index fund via the broker? Secondarily, which broker would you recommend I use?
FtttG
6mo ago
Two words: Elvis Presley. Nothing's changed much here recently.
If you look at videos of Elvis performing in his prime, I think most of the people going hysterical and literally fainting were teenage girls. I think that's largely Freddie's point: that certain behaviour which is acceptable in teenagers is very unbecoming in adults who ought to know better. Which includes many Swifties. I absolutely think the phenomenon of unmarried childless thirty-plus women spending small fortunes in order to go see a teenybopper on tour is a new one, actually.
C.S. Lewis answered that one
But C.S. Lewis did have varied and challenging artistic tastes! There's nothing wrong with a person in their thirties reading YA fiction in addition to reading books intended for adults. It's when YA fiction, fantasy, sci-fi etc. is all that you read that it becomes a sign of immaturity.
FtttG
8mo ago
NYT putting a Trump victory at 89%.
Assuming he wins, all of the people who've spent the last few weeks posting blackpills in the main threads about how the election is rigged and the Democrats are just going to pull "another" 2020 - I expect to see some mea culpas out of you. You know who you are.
A Dyslogy for Ireland's "Hate Speech" Bill
When someone shows you who they are, believe them
In several posts over the last few months I've alluded to a piece of legislation making its way through the Irish houses of parliament. The Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 (widely referred to as the “hate speech” bill) was a bill which would provide the government with sweeping powers to arrest and convict individuals they suspected of “stirring up hatred” against members of communities defined by one or more protected characteristics.1 This bill has been enormously controversial throughout its entire lifecycle, with precisely 40% of pollsters in favour and 40% opposed, and no less than Elon Musk pledging to pay the legal fees of anyone prosecuted under it in the event that it passed. It was first proposed in October 2022, passed in the Dáil2 in April 2023 after several rounds of amendments, and then made its way to the Seanad3, where it languished for well over a year, being neither approved nor rejected.
What an unmitigated joy and relief it was two weeks ago, to learn that the bill has officially been shelved by Ireland’s Minister of Justice, Helen McEntee. This specific bill has proved something of an albatross around the government’s neck for months, and not even a change in Taoiseach4 was sufficient to kill it. But a general election is due to be held no later than March of next year, and the incumbent Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael coalition government now finds itself in the unenviable position of needing to hastily course-correct just in time to appeal to the median voter (the budget announcement of two weeks ago, with its generous salary tax cuts, is part of the same drive). After the national embarrassment of a referendum rejected by fully 70% of the electorate, the government is finally cottoning on to the fact that its woke agenda, while enormously popular among progressive think tanks, NGOs and media outlets, is absolute cyanide at the polling station. Of course an effort to save face must be made, and Minister McEntee has committed to still pushing for hate crime legislation in spite of dropping the hate speech bill itself. But it’s also too soon to be doing victory laps, as McEntee has promised to come back for another bite at the apple if she’s reelected.
If you live in Ireland, you will likely have heard plenty of claims about what this bill entails: that previous legislation of this type proved ineffective at its stated aims, and so more robust legislation is required; or that the existing incitement to hatred legislation was drafted in a pre-digital, pre-social media era, and that this bill represents a simple but necessary “modernization” of existing legislation. (“Modernization” is the preferred term among the pathologically oikophobic East Yanks making up Fine Gael’s rank and file to describe the changes they wish to bring to bear on Irish society, who seem wholly unable to conceive that one could be opposed to such changes without being a parochial cattle farmer who takes his marching orders from Rome.) Given that there’s a significant possibility that this bill could be resurrected next year, understanding exactly what it entails remains as urgent as ever, so I would like to take this opportunity to explain what it proposed to do, in plain, unambiguous language. I will be quoting at length from the text of the bill which was approved by the Dáil in April of last year.
The first few examples of what constitutes an offense under this legislation are alarming enough. As outlined in articles 7-9, the bill would make it a criminal offense if a person “communicates material to the public or a section of the public… that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics”; if a person “communicates material to the public or a section of the public… that condones, denies or grossly trivialises [sic]— (i) genocide, (ii) a crime against humanity, (iii) a war crime”; even if no actual hatred or violence resulted as a result of this communication. These offenses would be punishable by a maximum of 5 years in prison or twelve months in prison, respectively.
It’s article 10 where things get really scary, however (bolding mine):
Subject to subsections (2) and (3) and section 11, a person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if the person—
(a) prepares or possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics with a view to the material being communicated to the public or a section of the public, whether by himself or herself or another person
(b) prepares or possesses such material with intent to incite violence or hatred against such a person or group of persons on account of those characteristics or any of those characteristics or being reckless as to whether such violence or hatred is thereby incited.
Creating or owning material “likely to incite violence or hatred” against protected groups would be a criminal offense punishable by up to two years in prison, even if this material is never distributed. It’s not merely a crime to verbally express racist thoughts in public, or make sexist jokes on Twitter: writing something racist in a Word document on a private desktop computer to which you’re the only person with access and which isn’t even connected to the Internet would also constitute a criminal offense.
Actually, it’s even worse than that. Did you know that when someone sends you an image on WhatsApp, by default that image is automatically saved down to the internal storage of your phone? This is true even of WhatsApp chats that you’ve muted or archived. This means that every image sent to you on WhatsApp is hence “in your possession”, by virtue of being saved on a device which belongs to you - the fact that you haven’t sent that image on to anyone else is irrelevant. Think about how many group chats you’ve been added to that you’ve had muted for months, in which ex-colleagues or old GAA teammates you didn’t even get along with at the time are constantly trying to one-up each other by sharing tasteless memes about the topic du jour. Think about your family group chat, to which your annoying uncle sends crudely drawn newspaper cartoons about “the old ball and chain”, amusing to no one but himself. It doesn’t matter that you didn’t create any of these images, that you didn’t forward these images on to anyone else, that you don’t agree with the contents of any of these images and actually find them crass and offensive - they’re saved to your phone, which means they’re in your possession, which means you’re guilty of an offense punishable by up to a year in prison.
Somehow, it gets worse. The bill also explains how search warrants are to be executed. If a judge was to be presented with compelling evidence that a given person is guilty of one of the above offenses, they can issue Garda Síochána5 with a search warrant, which must be executed within a week (bolding mine):
(2) A search warrant under this section shall be expressed, and shall operate, to authorise [sic] a named member…
(a) to enter, at any time within one week of the date of issue of the warrant, on production if so requested of the warrant, and if necessary by the use of reasonable force, the place named in the warrant,
(b) to search it and any persons found at that place, and
(c) to examine, seize and retain anything found at that place, or anything found in possession of a person present at that place at the time of the search, that that member reasonably believes to be evidence of, or relating to, the commission of an offence under section 7, 8 or 10, as the case may be.
(4) A member acting under the authority of a search warrant under this section may—
(a) operate any computer at the place that is being searched or cause any such computer to be operated by a person accompanying the member for that purpose, and
(b) require any person at that place who appears to the member to have lawful access to the information in any such computer—
(i) to give to the member any password necessary to operate it and any encryption key or code necessary to unencrypt the information accessible by the computer,
(ii) otherwise to enable the member to examine the information accessible by the computer in a form in which the information is visible and legible, or
(iii) to produce the information in a form in which it can be removed and in which it is, or can be made, visible and legible.
(7) A person who—
(a) obstructs or attempts to obstruct a member acting under the authority of a search warrant under this section,
(b) fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (4)(b) or (5), or (c) in relation to a requirement under subsection (5), gives a name and address or provides information which the member has reasonable cause for believing is false or misleading in a material respect,
shall be guilty of an offence.
(8) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (7) shall be liable on summary conviction to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both.
Let’s imagine for a moment that you are sympathetic to the stated aims of this bill, and you sincerely believe that far-right people spewing vitriol about immigrants online really ought to be locked up. Imagine you share an apartment with a flatmate called Joe, a shy, quiet guy who keeps to himself. You don’t consider Joe a personal friend, you don’t know much about him, and you don’t even eat your meals together - but he’s neat and tidy and pays the rent on time, so you have no complaints. Completely unbeknownst to you, Joe operates a pseudonymous Twitter account in which he expresses opinions about immigration to Ireland which some people consider offensive. Unfortunately for Joe, he’s been a bit careless about his digital footprint, and an anti-racist activist on Twitter was able to connect the dots and figure out his real name, which they pass on to the guards. The guards in turn determine his residence and request a search warrant, which is granted.
One evening you’re home alone (as Joe is away on holiday) when you hear a pounding at the door. Fearful that the guards will kick the door down (which they are perfectly entitled to do), you open the door. The guards explain they have a warrant to search your apartment, as they suspect that Joe (named on the warrant) is guilty of incitement to hatred. You explain that Joe is away and they should call back later. The guards don’t care, and demand that you present your wallet/handbag, phone and laptop to them so that they can search them for hateful material. You retort that this is ridiculous - you aren’t even named on the search warrant, you barely know Joe, Joe has never touched your phone or your laptop (or vice versa). The guards don’t care, and again demand that you surrender your phone, laptop, and the PINs to both. At this juncture you have the choice:
- Grant them access. The guards can now view all of your private documents, emails, messages and images. This would be invasive and potentially embarrassing enough, even if they don’t find any material they deem likely to promote hatred or incitement to violence against minorities. But of course, there’s every chance they might find an edgy meme that your annoying uncle sent to the family group chat which you didn’t realize was saved on to your phone - so they promptly arrest you, you’re prosecuted for incitement to hatred and sentenced to a year in prison.
- Refuse to grant them access. For refusing to hand over the PINs to your phone and laptop, the guards promptly arrest you, you’re prosecuted for obstructing justice, and you’re sentenced to a year in prison.
I see no reason, none, why the above scenario could not have transpired exactly as described above if this bill had passed according to the wording approved by the Dáil.
Now perhaps you’ll say to me - come on, that’s ridiculous. Maybe they want to enact this bill, but they won’t actually use it - it’s only being enacted as a deterrent, and maybe there’ll be one prosecution every five years for extremely persistent neo-Nazis literally waving 14/88 flags outside the synagogue in Terenure. Ordinary people with a dark sense of humour have nothing to fear from this bill.
I wouldn’t be so confident. For an example very close to home, consider section 127 of the UK’s Communications Act 2003, which makes it illegal to intentionally “cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another” with online posts, on which it appears Ireland’s “hate speech” bill took at least some inspiration. As reported by the Times, at least 2,315 people were arrested under this section of the act in 2014, a figure which shot up to 3,395 in 2023. And before you say that all of these people were let off with a warning, 1,399 people were convicted under this act last year - and this was under a Tory government!6 Scale these figures down to the size of the Irish population, and ceteris paribus you would expect 253 arrests and 104 convictions in Ireland every year. In a period in which the Irish prison service is massively underresourced and ovecrowded, with the prison population consistently in excess of the total bed capacity by as much as 10-12% throughout the year - the government now wants to throw as many as another hundred people in jail every year for the crime of making tasteless jokes in the privacy of their own homes.
Or you’ll say, sure, the bill is written in an extremely sweeping fashion, but it’ll never actually be used to lock people up just for making a joke in poor taste. They’re keeping the wording expansive only so that genuine racists and far-right nutters won’t be able to weasel out of a conviction on a technicality, but the genuine racists and far-night nutters are the only people who’ll be targeted by it: otherwise decent, law-abiding citizens will be left alone.
I’m having none of it. Look at past efforts to control speech and behaviour and/or invade citizenry’s privacy from this century alone, and the apology outlined above pattern-matches to none of them. “Hate speech” legislation in France was adapted into ag-gag legislation so quickly it must have made those poor Parisians’ beret-clad heads spin (“stigmatizing agricultural activities” is certainly a colorful way to refer to any and all criticisms of factory farming). If you made a list of all the activities which could be reasonably characterized as aiding or abetting terrorism, I very much doubt “operating a fan website about the TV show Stargate SG-1” would make the top 100 such entries, or even the top 1,000: that didn’t stop the US government invoking the USA PATRIOT Act (enacted just six weeks after 9/11, ostensibly to combat terrorism) to subpoena the financial records of the unfortunate webmaster in question. When governments are afforded sweeping powers to invade the privacy of their citizenry, they tend to put them to full use. Consider the aforementioned section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 - do you think the only people convicted under it were outspoken neo-Nazis and white supremacists? Let’s see:
A 20-year-old builder has been ordered to pay more than £500 after he drew a penis on a police officer's face using Snapchat.
Jordan Barrack secretly took the photo on his mobile phone while being interviewed by an officer at Sleaford Police Station, Lincoln.
He then drew two penises on the picture using Snapchat, one over the officer PC Charles Harris' face, before sending it to some friends and posting it on Facebook.
…
He pleaded guilty at Lincoln Magistrates’ Court to 'posting a grossly offensive, obscene picture on a social media site' and was ordered to pay £400 in compensation.
The youngster, who lives with his parents, had to pay an additional £85 of costs and a £60 victim surcharge, and was ordered to serve a 12 month community order with 40 hours of unpaid work.
…
"They confiscated my phone at the time and I still haven't got it back over five months later even though the case is finished now."7
As I've gone out of my way to outline above, criminal offenses are defined so broadly under this bill that you would be hard pressed to find someone who isn't guilty of one of them - after all, who among us hasn't been sent an edgy or offensive meme by a relative, work colleague, or friend of a friend? Some apologists for this bill will use that very fact as a point in its defense: they think there's some kind of “safety in numbers” effect, wherein a bill which makes a criminal of just about everyone will quickly be exposed as a farce and abolished. But this defense rests entirely on the touchingly naïve assumption that the government (or more specifically, the director of public prosecutions) would have the slightest interest in enforcing this law in an impartial manner. On the contrary: a crime which is defined in such a way that everyone is guilty of it is an absolute godsend to a cabinet looking to silence or intimidate its opponents. Selective enforcement is the name of the game, and you can be certain that the DPP would come down like a tonne of bricks on anyone critical of the establishment, but look the other way when people who toe the party line crack offensive jokes or say hateful things.
Hell, even if they're unable to secure a conviction, being dragged through the courts is exhausting, expensive and humiliating enough. If you criticise the government, and then have to endure the embarrassment of the guards rifling through your personal effects and private documents for hours, getting arrested and charged with possessing materials which could be used for incitement to hatred, having to waste hundreds of man-hours and tens of thousands of euros mounting a legal defense before showing up for your day in court - even if you win, even if the state agrees to pay your legal fees (which they probably wouldn't), do you think you'll be as strongly inclined to criticise the government going forward? No one wants to go through that grief even once, never mind twice. The process is the punishment, and “hate speech” legislation can here function as the criminal justice equivalent of a SLAPP lawsuit. Don’t believe for a second that this has anything to do with combatting “hate” or “prejudice” or whatever: this is the iron fist in the rainbow glove all over again.
Apologists for invasive, authoritarian legislation of this type sometimes fall back on that old saw: “if you're innocent, you've nothing to worry about”, or as one commenter on the r/ireland subreddit put it, “just don't be a cunt and you'll be fine”. Putting aside the question of whether it's appropriate or proportionate to jail someone for a year or longer for the crime of “being a cunt”, what I've tried to do in this article is emphasise that this argument simply does not apply in the case of this specific bill. Whether by accident or by design, collateral damage and guilt-by-association are built into this bill from its foundations. If enacted, it will be entirely possible to go one's entire life without expressing a single hateful opinion or tasteless joke, and still be convicted of a criminal offense. All because you had the poor fortune to live in the same house as someone who has done one or more of these things, or because someone sent you a tasteless image on WhatsApp and you didn’t realise in time to delete it.
This government spent most of 2020-21 urging its populace to practise social distancing and limit their social contacts for fear of spreading a virus. Now they are doing the same thing, only for “viruses” of the mind. Think about the kinds of behaviour being incentivised, when people realise that they could be found guilty of a criminal offense simply because someone else (even someone they don't know, who they've never met) sent a crass image to their phone. The chilling effects are predictable and inevitable: people will steadily begin to avoid giving out their phone numbers (even to potentially valuable business contacts, or potential friends or romantic partners); will avoid joining WhatsApp groups unless they are certain that none of the members of that group have offensive opinions (something they can never be certain of, obviously); and will begin to curtail their documentable interactions with anyone without the “correct” politics (baldly counter to the basic goals and values of a pluralistic society). Ireland is already the loneliest country in Europe - how could such a situation not be exacerbated by this bill, if Irish people are reluctant to give their phone numbers to acquaintances out of an entirely legitimate fear that doing so will put them at increased risk of arrest and prosecution?
Meanwhile, anyone with unorthodox politics or a dark sense of humour will find themselves left out in the cold, their friends having blocked them on WhatsApp for fear of being convicted by association. Confused and hurt by rejection from all angles, they will retreat into online echo chambers of like-minded individuals, in which their worst tendencies will be amplified beyond all proportion. Far from serving as an effective antidote to far-right radicalisation, this bill is a recipe for it.
Assuming you reside in Ireland, I’m not going to tell you how to vote in the next general election - that’s entirely your business. But before you cast your vote, I’m pleading with you to consider this. Listed below are the names of the TDs who voted in favour of this bill when it passed in the Dáil.8 If you are considering voting for any of them, please bear this in mind: these people know that, as a consequence of this bill, a member of the public, just like you, could be sent to prison for a year for refusing to disclose the PIN to their phone to a police officer, without having ever been named on a search warrant or having been personally accused of incitement to hatred. They know that a member of the public could be sent to prison for a year merely for possessing an image that somebody might find offensive - even if they didn’t create it, even if they never sent it to anybody else, even if they literally didn’t know it was in their possession (because it was sent to a WhatsApp group of which they are a member, but which they’ve had muted for months). They know this for a fact, and they don’t care: they are completely fine with it. And if the opportunity presents itself, they’ll vote for it again, as Minister McEntee surely expects them to do.
Maybe knowing this fact about these politicians isn’t a deal-breaker for you. But it is for me, and I don't even care that this bill hasn’t been enacted (yet): by voting for it, these TDs have told me everything I need to know about them and their respect for ordinary people and their civil liberties. To keep myself honest, I am making a public pledge: I will never give any of the names which appear on the list below any preference in any ballot paper I fill out until the day I die, unless the politician in question gives a public apology for voting for this bill and expressly admits that they personally were wrong to have done so. If they canvass me, I will ask them point-blank why they think it’s appropriate to arrest someone because someone else sent them an offensive meme. If the only candidates running in my constituency are candidates who voted in favour of this tyrannical, authoritarian monstrosity and express no remorse about having done so, I will abstain.
-
Andrews, Chris
-
Berry, Cathal
-
Brady, John
-
Brophy, Colm
-
Browne, James
-
Browne, Martin
-
Bruton, Richard
-
Buckley, Pat
-
Burke, Colm
-
Butler, Mary
-
Byrne, Thomas
-
Cahill, Jackie
-
Cairns, Holly
-
Calleary, Dara
-
Canney, Seán
-
Cannon, Ciarán
-
Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer
-
Carthy, Matt
-
Chambers, Jack
-
Clarke, Sorca
-
Collins, Niall
-
Conway-Walsh, Rose
-
Costello, Patrick
-
Coveney, Simon
-
Cowen, Barry
-
Cronin, Réada
-
Crowe, Cathal
-
Crowe, Seán
-
Daly, Pa
-
Devlin, Cormac
-
Dillon, Alan
-
Donnelly, Paul
-
Donnelly, Stephen
-
Donohoe, Paschal
-
Duffy, Francis Noel
-
Durkan, Bernard J
-
Ellis, Dessie
-
English, Damien
-
Farrell, Alan
-
Farrell, Mairéad
-
Feighan, Frankie
-
Flaherty, Joe
-
Flanagan, Charles
-
Fleming, Sean
-
Foley, Norma
-
Funchion, Kathleen
-
Gannon, Gary
-
Gould, Thomas
-
Griffin, Brendan
-
Guirke, Johnny
-
Haughey, Seán
-
Heydon, Martin
-
Higgins, Emer
-
Howlin, Brendan
-
Humphreys, Heather
-
Kehoe, Paul
-
Kenny, Martin
-
Kerrane, Claire
-
Lahart, John
-
Leddin, Brian
-
Lowry, Michael
-
Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig
-
Madigan, Josepha
-
Martin, Micheál
-
Matthews, Steven
-
McAuliffe, Paul
-
McConalogue, Charlie
-
McGrath, Michael
-
McGuinness, John
-
McHugh, Joe
-
Mitchell, Denise
-
Moynihan, Aindrias
-
Moynihan, Michael
-
Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer
-
Nash, Ged
-
Naughton, Hildegarde
-
Noonan, Malcolm
-
O'Brien, Darragh
-
O'Brien, Joe
-
O'Callaghan, Cian
-
O'Callaghan, Jim
-
O'Connor, James
-
O'Donnell, Kieran
-
O'Dowd, Fergus
-
O'Gorman, Roderic
-
O'Reilly, Louise
-
O'Rourke, Darren
-
O'Sullivan, Christopher
-
O'Sullivan, Pádraig
-
Ó Broin, Eoin
-
Ó Cathasaigh, Marc
-
Ó Cuív, Éamon
-
Ó Murchú, Ruairí
-
Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán
-
Ó Snodaigh, Aengus
-
Quinlivan, Maurice
-
Rabbitte, Anne
-
Richmond, Neale
-
Ring, Michael
-
Ryan, Eamon
-
Ryan, Patricia
-
Smith, Brendan
-
Smith, Duncan
-
Smyth, Ossian
-
Stanley, Brian
-
Stanton, David
-
Tully, Pauline
-
Varadkar, Leo
-
Ward, Mark
-
Whitmore, Jennifer
I hope for our sakes that Elon Musk’s coffers are as deep as everyone says they are.
1In the order listed in the text of the bill: race, colour, nationality, religion, national or ethnic origin, descent, gender, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, disability.
2 Lower house of parliament.
3 Upper house of parliament.
4 Prime minister.
5 The Irish police service.
6 As pointed out by Greg Lukianoff, more people were arrested under this act in a two-year span than the total number of people arrested during that infamously repressive period in American history, the first Red Scare, even though the UK population in 2014-2015 was only 70% that of the US in 1920.
7 I wonder if the woke people defending legislation of this type, many of whom have “ACAB” (all cops are bastards) in their Twitter bios, are aware that it can and has been used to prosecute people for playfully teasing police officers.
8 And believe you me, I never foresaw finding myself in a position in which I’d have to give credit where credit’s due to Richard Boyd Barrett, Paul Murphy, Bríd Smith and the Healy-Raes of all people. Coalitions make strange bedfellows indeed.
FtttG
1mo ago
FtttG
1yr ago
In my last job, the head of marketing was trying to get us to put our preferred pronouns in our email signatures (something which is very much not common practice in this country). I was very opposed and told her so, pointing out that there were (to my knowledge) no trans or non-binary people on staff, but plenty of first-generation Polish, Romanian and Brazilian migrants, for the majority of whom the concept of "preferred pronouns" is alien, and who would most likely feel confused and excluded by such a policy. I argued that it seemed like very skewed priorities indeed, to roll out a policy with the goal of making hypothetical future employees feel more included - at the cost of making current staff members feel more excluded.
'Given that african savages are manifestly, transparently incapable of civilization and self-rule, it's dishonest to say that enslaving them is a racist policy'.
If you mean to imply that "the average male is stronger and faster than 99% of females" is as obviously ridiculous an assertion as "African savages are incapable of civilization and self-rule" - well, I don't know what to tell you. That you're wrong? That you're exactly as wrong as the last time as we talked about this stuff, when you offered some extremely weak arguments in favour of the hypothesis that "trans women have no competitive advantage over females", I pointed out (at length) how weak your arguments were, you said you were going to reply and then didn't?
Yeah these are anti-LGBT laws dawg. You can claim that they are anti-lgbt and justified, if that's the hill you want to die on. But writing a law with the sole purpose of restricting a right from a specific group is 'manifestly' anti-that-group.
To be pedantic, these laws mostly seem anti-T, not anti-LGBT. The only ones which maybe could be classified as anti-LGB are the ones about sex ed, and even then it's a reach. Good luck explaining to me how gay men are negatively impacted by bans on male athletes competing in female sporting events, or lesbians by bans on males using female bathrooms. There are quite a few lesbians who support laws banning males from using female bathrooms, if you haven't already noticed.
I'm curious where and when it was decided that everyone has the "right" to compete in sporting events which accord with that person's claimed gender identity. On the contrary: everyone has the right to compete in sporting events for their sex, and legislation of this type does nothing to restrict the ability of trans women or girls from exercising that right.
If commitment to being an "ally" requires me to pretend that there's no innate difference between male and female athletic ability, and all of the female athletes complaining about being ruthlessly outcompeted by male athletes who "discovered" that they're trans all of five minutes ago - those uppity women just need to stop whining and Git Gud: then yes, this is the hill I want to die on, thanks for asking. The idea that any policy which is marketed as pro-LGBTQ is automatically a good policy is such a silly and juvenile way of looking at the world.
And while I suspect it's just true that police in those state are actually less likely to punish you - or will punish you less harshly - for that type of crime, I'm confident that a good portion of the people who want to commit those crimes will hear about their local government passing anti-lgbt laws and take that as a sign that the law is on their side and will treat them kindly if they go ahead.
Curious, then, that states which didn't pass anti-LGBT laws saw far greater spikes in anti-LGBT hate crimes during the period under discussion than states which did. As I went to great pains to demonstrate in the post that you're replying to.
Lists of "worst video games ever" are quite a bit different from equivalent lists of books, movies etc., because before you can even begin to analyse whether a game is good or bad from an aesthetic perspective, it has to meet a certain floor of being functional from a technical, mechanical perspective. Hence, these lists often tend to boil down to a list of games which are hideously broken from a technical perspective (Big Rigs, E.T. for the Atari 2600), as opposed to games which are "so bad it's good/horrible" in the sense of aesthetics, tone, quality of acting, poor writing etc.. Of course a game which is so badly designed as to be functionally unplayable is very embarrassing for the studio that designed it, but it doesn't induce the same sensation of discomfort and cringe that a so-bad-it's-good film does. Broken video games, to my mind, are only interesting if you're a game designer or software developer who wants to learn what not to do; to everyone else it's just "they tried to make a game which was mechanically sound, and they failed". These games aren't interesting to discuss the way bad films can be. Probably the closest analogue is in film, in which bad films are often criticised in part for being technically incompetent. But The Room didn't become a classic of the so-bad-it's-good genre because of its primitive green screen, amateurish post-production dubbing and slapdash continuity: those elements were just the icing on the cake of its nonsensical plot, illogical characters, bizarre dialogue and its creator's misogynistic, narcissistic worldview. Even a version of The Room directed by a halfway competent production team (but using the same screenplay and actors) would probably still have been an embarrassment. (And conversely, a film with a passable screenplay and decent actors, but with clumsy post-production dubbing, would never become a classic of so-bad-it's-good cinema on the level of The Room.)
With all of that preamble out of the way, I'm curious what you consider the worst video games ever from an aesthetic perspective. In particular, I'm interested in video games which are technically functional and not completely broken, but which make so many bad aesthetic choices that playing them induces a feeling of vicarious embarrassment comparable to what one might experience watching an Ed Wood or Neil Breen film.
(I'm sure someone's going to mention Deadly Premonition but I'm not sure if it really counts: looking at the cutscenes I get the distinct impression that the developers were in on the joke and deliberately aiming for a cheesy kind of B-movie humour.)
More options
Context Copy link