Tony Montana wrote:

How did you get that gig?

I've lived in NY for a year but I'm moving back now. Wouldn't mind living in the U.S. but then there's family, friends and live European football at normal times (i.e not when you're at work or sleeping in on Saturday morning/afternoon).

Never been to Colorado.

It's an alright place (Colorado), better than I expected. They are really into football (soccer) out here. I work in [experimental] media arts and there is a lot of history and interest for it. Most of the family is no longer in England anymore, split up between the US and Canada. There is good work being done in the UK on the motion picture arts front, but some of the Brits I've worked with keep telling me not to come back as the climate is apparently rife with frustrations for my sort of work.

The media going mental on the Stacey sentence is beside the point as far as I'm concerned.

He got precisely what he deserved for publishing racist and deliberately vile comments on a public space.

Maybe now some similarly pathetic cowardly idiots might think twice before drink and anonymity propels them into writing things designed to be hateful and destructive.

so where do you draw the line? Who is going to say this is where you crossed the line and you will be jailed for it?
So thin line and do you think the govt/law or the officials (whatever) are not going to misuse?

I am still confused about this!

Would he have stood up and voiced publically those views, in a room full of people?
I think not.
If he had done so could he have been arrested?
Possibly, yes.

There's the line.
Anonymity and a keypad do not make you invisible or above the law.

i prefer my racism out in the open and not hidden in backrooms (or worse boardrooms). at least i know where i stand with the guy with a swastika tattooed on his forehead.

he shouldn't be jailed, you're just driving him further into the grasp of the bnp. the shit he would have gotten from his peers at school (if they aren't just like him) would have been punishment enough. now he's jailed, will probably drop out of school. how does society benefit from that?

i don't understand the law. thinking racist things is still legal. but can one say racist things out loud to a small group of people? what if one posts racist things on his friends-only fb wall?

is a line drawn because the racist speech offends others? then can you be imprisoned for calling someone fat or dumb or a whore in an excessively rude way? i've abused chamakh on here, am i in danger of being imprisoned if i set foot in the UK again?

or is the line drawn because you might foment violence through your racist speech? if that is the case, then why even make a distinction as to whether the speech is racist? fomenting or inciting violence is what it is already.

everyone agrees that what this kid said was despicable, but to me, in a country that values freedom, i don't see how that justifies imprisonment. it's a big deal to curtail someone's freedom of movement, even if it's "just" for 40 days or whatever it is. to me, that's a punishment for crimes that actually hurt people, and not a "crime" that merely offends the sensibilities of society or of a certain judge.

He was sentenced to 40 days because he broke the law, even on appeal this proved to be the case.
Comments made on-line are not beyond the law.
Not sure why people are having such a difficult time understanding that.
The law was not invented to punish him specifically, he was not imprisoned because the morally outraged demanded that he should be, or because the media worked itself up into a frenzy over the whole story, the law he contravened existed long before he made his comments.

Here's what the judge said:

"He was intending to say what he said and was intending to produce the effect that he did,"

"There can be no avoiding the conclusion that your offence was committed in the context of a grave illness that had afflicted Fabrice Muamba.

"It was immediately apparent that he was gravely ill and while he was lying prostrate on the pitch you posted comments that were extremely racist couched in terms that can only be described as extremely offensive.

Kami, that's a very nice post (and I enjoyed reading your take as well, coombs).

These are not easy issues, and they are not necessarily proved right either way. It is not even sure there's sense in dissecting (separate "violence" form "racial". Or, for that matter, the idiot from the racist).

There certainly could be harm in such speech, and tweeting is as public as it gets - it is something you do (therefor we're not discussing mere "thought police"). However, the dangers of public opinion effect, government over reaction and pressure (even if the judicial system is "independent of it") are very real. Those of you who find comfort in the "fact" that the law is no fluke, and that it "existed before this case", stood appeal, etc., should ask yourselves if you are not conflating the satisfaction of seeing a sleaze being punished with things actually going the right way. Right means for all sides of it.
And here, several issues unrelated to justice - or indeed clearly threatening justice - seemed to have raised their heads.

I'd not rush to belittle what that idiot has done (if indeed I got the right picture regarding what he has done). He deserves punishment. But I agree with those who say we should be worried about many aspects concerning the way the man was dealt with. That he's a sleaze we all agree. That's not where work ends - it's where it begins. otherwise, we put ourselves at risk of becoming that ourselves (yes, I'm aware of the difference. It's the similarities I'm concerned with, slight as they may be: we are not he).

I feel as if I haven't condemned the dipshit at all, really, and I'd like to take the opportunity to do so. Stacey is a total dipshit and ingrate. Even worse, he is absolutely and completely stupid in the most offensive of ways.

I agree that he published "racist and deliberately vile comments" on twitter and that he intended "to produce the effect that he did," but the little cricket in my brain tells me these are irrelevant facts in-so-far as judgement/punishment by an elected government. Don't think it should ever be within a government's power (I maintain that the courts are very much a part of government even if said government practices judiciary independence; they still operate based on the laws of a nation which are created and executed by the other governmental branches) to exercise this kind of authority over public or private speech, regardless of the situation. The fact that the judge finds it necessary to mention the specific circumstances, for me, is too subjective a view for what is supposed to be an impartial judge. It shouldn't matter whether Muamba was dead, ill, or perfectly healthy. The law, for me, has to be objective and clear and ruled less by subjective qualitative values and more by objective quantitative ones. Any racism Stacey may have incited was already latent in the audience he was reaching. Blaming him for this and jailing him for it is papering over the cracks of deeper sociological concerns that won't be rectified by fear and punishment, but by more positive, constructive means.

Above all, it will take time. We're on the right track in general, I feel, but incidents like this (which is all over the news here, with political pundits politicking their red-faced heads off) are totally counter-productive. The little twat should have simply been ignored by the police, the courts, and the media, imo. Let his family, friends, and peers deal with him.

Very well spoken, kami. Pretty much exactly how I feel about it (plus a healthy dose of indignation). And yuv's point is also a very interesting one re: We vs. He. I find that the "He" all too often dies for the sins of the "We." Kind of like blaming Ramsey for our terrible season (though he's been pretty crap!). In short: scapegoating.

EDIT: Not that I'm really comparing Stacey to Jesus!

You leave Ramsey out of this ! 🙂

Captain wrote:
Pepe LeFrits wrote:

For me 6 of the 11 first google results for Muamba return links about the racism story.

Can't say I'm too enthused with the laws on this. Partly because of the precedent, but also because throwing people in jail isnt a terribly effective way of killing an idea.

Precedent was set some time ago Peps, this one just happens to be in the news because it involved Muamba.

I wasn't referring to this case Capi but the law itself. I find it mildly concerning that free speech in the UK (and Ireland too I believe) is basically malleable and open to being defined by the beliefs of whomever is in power at any given time.

The irony of all of this is that few of us know exactly what it is that he said.
For my part I believe that it must have been serious, pernicious, harmful and malicious, given that he was sentenced.

I have no doubt that those who govern want to control what is communicated on the internet, it's a battle that we will see fought over the years to come.

But I would not waste my time using Stacey as an example of why we should rail against the authoroties desire to impose control over our thought and speech.
I'm actually unperturbed by the fact that he was packed off to prison for forty days.

Nobody's worried about him personally, and no one wants to storm the bastille for his sake. I can only speak for myself, but I would imagine others worried about this couldn't give a fuck if he rots in hell either.

The thing is that an attitude like the one expressed in this last post (which I think is not unique at that in this thread - it looks like the main thrust is thinking alike), while perhaps spot on in the specific judgment - a bad guy got a harsh treatment, yey - it is neglecting a deeper principle for the particular case.

Now whether justice (and such) should work more as particular than as principled is a heavy subject, and I don't think this is the right place. Surely we could present positive aspects of both, and specific circumstances in which one would be better. But the risk of "going particular, in principle" is just too much.

Though I don't think it is entirely true that the judicial arm is a part of the government, as suggested earlier, it is still affected by much external influence (or is at least in real danger of being affected thus): majority opinion (not always a good thing), people of power (government, media, rich, what have you), even legal "fashion". And certainly legal zeal (again - I'm not always sure if that's a good thing). Pepe expressed a like concern in:

concerning that free speech... is basically malleable and open to being defined by the beliefs of whomever is in power at any given time

In this case freedom of speech, but case could be generalized further when a principle seems to be sacrificed for the good of a specific case. And particularly if we want to have faith in the justice system, such as expressed by this:

I believe that it must have been serious, pernicious, harmful and malicious, given that he was sentenced.

If we want to continue to be able to have such faith, we must make sure our eyes are kept open, and we don't encourage any impartiality.

We are all pontificating without full knowledge of what it is that Stacey said.
That particular fact is key and is being largely ignored in most of the posts that I have read.
I do not have a huge amount of faith in either those who run our countries or in the legal sytem that upholds our laws.
The laws themselves are often questionable.

I do however believe that generally speaking judges avoid handing out custodial sentences, the usual complaint is that sentences handed down are not severe enough.

For that reason alone I thought that whatever it is that Stacey said must have been malevolent to the extent that it warranted a severe punishment.

yuv wrote:

Kami, that's a very nice post (and I enjoyed reading your take as well, coombs).

These are not easy issues, and they are not necessarily proved right either way. It is not even sure there's sense in dissecting (separate "violence" form "racial". Or, for that matter, the idiot from the racist).

There certainly could be harm in such speech, and tweeting is as public as it gets - it is something you do (therefor we're not discussing mere "thought police"). However, the dangers of public opinion effect, government over reaction and pressure (even if the judicial system is "independent of it") are very real. Those of you who find comfort in the "fact" that the law is no fluke, and that it "existed before this case", stood appeal, etc., should ask yourselves if you are not conflating the satisfaction of seeing a sleaze being punished with things actually going the right way. Right means for all sides of it.
And here, several issues unrelated to justice - or indeed clearly threatening justice - seemed to have raised their heads.

I'd not rush to belittle what that idiot has done (if indeed I got the right picture regarding what he has done). He deserves punishment. But I agree with those who say we should be worried about many aspects concerning the way the man was dealt with. That he's a sleaze we all agree. That's not where work ends - it's where it begins. otherwise, we put ourselves at risk of becoming that ourselves (yes, I'm aware of the difference. It's the similarities I'm concerned with, slight as they may be: we are not he).

Whats so hard to understand?

Anyone is free to hold whatever vile depraved thoughts they want to in their heads, their heads are their own, but we all share this world and so the rest of us don't have to put up with them, if you try to force them on us like that Norwegian nut job the authorities have a duty to crush them.
He was tried and condemned in a court in a democracy, he didn't get a bullet in the back of the head in some secret prison.

If every nutter is free to go around inciting hate society simply won't work and it'll be everyone for themselves as it was in our ancient past.

the usual complaint is that sentences handed down are not severe enough.
For that reason alone I thought that whatever it is that Stacey said must have been malevolent to the extent that it warranted a severe punishment.

Either you mean that "statistically", or "empirically" concluding that in a way - "they rule easy; this is harsh; therefore it is probably sever", or in a way normatively - you trust they judge leniently, and being impartial you trust they adequately judged hard here.

It's nice that (if the latter is the case in a significant way) you trust judges, and certainly more healthy than trusting politicians for example, but then I guess you should doubly see the worry with making sure they really can and do rule without too much external pressure. To me such pressure almost equates to "irrelevant pressure" (or: more proneness to bias, for example). Particularly true if you don't like the laws they need to work with as their tools. It's not like you give them such a steady ground to stand on to begin with, without good laws.

Whats so hard to understand?

I'm quite sure there are things hard to understand in this, but I'm not sure this is relevant here. Looks to me more like a case of: similarly understand, differently believe. We don't all share the sensation that all is binary stuff, that there are laws and those judged according to them, and either they'er good (comply) or bad (break the law). You sometimes feel there's more to the story, though it doesn't necessarily mean you disagree about what is done in a specific case.

We can easily agree that you can have total freedom within, and limited freedom in public. But - how do you define it? where does something begin to be unworthy? can I really be relaxed knowing "the law does this work for me?" Some say - "yes". Legit. I don't think it's the only legitimate opinion, and even if it somehow were - I certainly don't think our interest with this ends here. But that'll have to do for now.

What looks likely to be an accurate copy of Liam Stacey's twitter feed is here for anyone interested. Word search "Fuck Muamba" and scroll up for the relevant highlights, as well as a fair bit of backpedalling, claiming he didn't have his phone etc.

This sort of discussion is typical of rights-based thinking I think. To me 'rights' don't have much relationship to the way society works, or is forced to work.

In the past couple of weeks we've had two different threads in which people have invoked the idea of an inalienable freedom to argue for, on the one hand, no punishment for a racist moron, and on the other no Qatari world cup because Qatar is a religious regime in which the sale of alcohol is banned.

What you can say about Stacey is that he wasn't important enough to avoid a jail term. If he'd been Prince Harry, he would've gotten off ok. Based on what I've read, I think he's an idiot who will probably survive, and be suitably chastened by a few weeks in the clink.

In general though the satisfaction of mutually contradictory rights is, if not impossible, complex enough that cases tend to be resolved in the favour of power. To pick an example of gross injustice from the current media cycle, the Trayvon Martin case.

Also, the idea of a category difference between 'speech' and 'action' is philosophically fascinating, but not exactly clear. Makes it hard for me to understand why, though no one would ever advocate 'free' action, some protest the sanctity of every worst instance of 'free' speech.

Start with the end: it is not an easy one. and it has been challenging philosophers for a while (though it is certainly not the most baffling definition challenge around). As related to this discussion, the right for freedom of speech is taken as very intimate, as a part of being complete (within a social environment, granted, but shutting you up is close enough to telling you what to think, according to some views), while actions (with a more "physical presence" in the world) are taken as more likely to affect your fellow members of society. I'm not saying this solves it (hardly), rather that there is quite a simple intuition that people tend to follow (and at least that is not too hard to see).

As for the rights comments you made, I'm not sure in which way you mean that. It sounds like you are suspicious of the whole "right thing" altogether, and mostly for it's ambiguous nature/lack of clear cut justification-manifestation of "where do these rights actually come from". (I take that mainly from "To me 'rights' don't have much relationship to the way society works, or is forced to work", which I hardly suspect you mean descriptively - surely you'd know that is not universally true - but rather that "they shouldn't be" - etc. ). If so then sure, you're not alone in that (I don't know exactly what your field is` but you seem to know something about it). Philosophers been fighting it, and the challenge to show the above has always been there.

However, it does not mean necessarily we need to fold and give it up entirely. Even if there really are "contradicting", indeed, "seemingly excluding" rights (though obviously that would make balancing them more tricky. I have to admit at least that 🙂 ). I'd say the big question (at least politically, if not deeply, or theoretically) is always: what's the alternative? what sort of arrangement would provide us with the necessary protection of our individual, as well as social-communal needs, interests, desires, etc?

As for the specific case (which I must say I find less interesting by the moment) it is, at least to me personally, quite sad if he got the harsh treatment "because he's no one". That cases tend to be resolved in favor of power (and, as you say, manifesting injustice) is both the way things are and a reason for us to be on guard. Nothing new here, actually. But this is one that never goes away.

Well Yuv 'rights' don't really exist, they're an artificial construct of society, and if you agree to live in a society you have to obey their rules,
For Stacy its the UK society and for Qatar it's the international society (Burnsy), anyone can go into the wilderness and shout anything they like.

And the reason why cases are resolved by power is because ultimately all authority comes from power, my house my rules.

Biggus wrote:

'rights' don't really exist, they're an artificial construct of society

so... do they exist as a construct of society? cos then you might think society "constructs" rules that establish rights.

and if you agree to live in a society you have to obey their rules

and if those rules have established said rights, that seems to mean that everybody needs to respect the rights declared (constructed or what have you) by society.

And the reason why cases are resolved by power is because ultimately all authority comes from power, my house my rules.

Some people along the way thought they may do well if they used this insight, and come together in some sort of agreement or pact, which will combine their power, thus making sure they possess the greatest power around. They have the authority, and they can live a life they have all agreed to (quite possibly, one which forbids infringement of "rights"; which according to this no longer look like pink flying elephants, but like these strong things that have authority, the land lords).

People been thinking up such shit for at least two and a half millennia (they still do, very seriously). Funny thing: though they did seem to notice power, authority, agreement, rules and different ways of constructing a common life in their wake, they don't all agree. Well, not on everything 🙂 .

Rights don't exist, absolutely. Nobody has the right to free anything. To me, it seems quite clear that nobody has the 'right' to punish someone either. Societal constructs are not, however, unnatural. They are a product of urban living, and have been created for the sake of individual survival through collective order.

My big question is, at what point is order restricting freedom in a way that is nonessential for individual survival (through the collective order and safety). For me, there are inherent dangers to living in a society of other animals in close quarters (Twitter makes me claustrophobic its so crowded). I think that being verbally offended is simply not damaging to individual survival enough that I would sacrifice a freedom to avoid it. If offending someone causes them to act in a violent manner, the violence is what should be punished, not the verbal offense. The violent offender was not able to deal with something society threw at it, took action that caused a direct threat to the individual survival of another person, and a very real crime was committed. Individual survival can be threatened in many ways, and sometimes it CAN be caused verbally (slander resulting in job loss, etc.). For me, this was clearly not the case, and hatred in and of itself, motivated by race or otherwise, should not be a crime.

Different societies have different rules, different values, and different definitions of survival. That doesn't mean we have to necessarily respect their culture. No law, society, culture, nation, judge, etc. have a "right" to anyone's respect or compliance. It's all a choice we make.

@[deleted] I agree with you on the following:

  • Morality has its genesis in the requirements of harmonious human coexistence, not post hoc affirmation of nebulous, contradictory 'rights'
  • A best case for working with society's ideals of freedom requires unpleasant tradeoffs
  • Moral principles are only truly relevant in so far as they can be enforced
  • By and large the law has no place in the affairs of isolated individuals
  • Though social and cultural context is of definitive importance in assessing right and wrong, no culture has a proper claim to moral absolutism

I don't agree that verbal offences aren't in general as severe or significant as other offences - I don't agree with the category distinction between speech and action, in other words. I don't agree that "individual survival" has to be explicitly threatened by hate speech offences for them to be punishable, as I think justice should account for the possibilities that attend upon offences, as well as the actual outcomes. The lines are blurred.

To the extent we agree on principles the whole argument is subject to ethical slicing ("how severe" a speech offence can be and "what is an appropriate freedom to partially relinquish to prevent hate speech"?). It comes down to an irresoluble difference of opinion on a proportionate punishment for notably extreme racist speech.

Arguments about the grounds of justice are hairy. Values of retribution, deterrent, rehabilitation, and proportionality combine to make the question of sentencing unsolvable in practical terms. I'm guessing everyone in this thread has a slightly different view, but any given law is required to take only one, relatively consistent systematic approach to calibrating offences.

In my opinion, since the punishment meted out to Stacey for his offence is rarely applied and isn't particularly heavy in this instance, there's no major problem here.

Coombs wrote:

Rights don't exist, absolutely. Nobody has the right to free anything. To me, it seems quite clear that nobody has the 'right' to punish someone either. Societal constructs are not, however, unnatural. They are a product of urban living, and have been created for the sake of individual survival through collective order.

My big question is, at what point is order restricting freedom in a way that is nonessential for individual survival (through the collective order and safety). For me, there are inherent dangers to living in a society of other animals in close quarters (Twitter makes me claustrophobic its so crowded). I think that being verbally offended is simply not damaging to individual survival enough that I would sacrifice a freedom to avoid it. If offending someone causes them to act in a violent manner, the violence is what should be punished, not the verbal offense. The violent offender was not able to deal with something society threw at it, took action that caused a direct threat to the individual survival of another person, and a very real crime was committed. Individual survival can be threatened in many ways, and sometimes it CAN be caused verbally (slander resulting in job loss, etc.). For me, this was clearly not the case, and hatred in and of itself, motivated by race or otherwise, should not be a crime.

Different societies have different rules, different values, and different definitions of survival. That doesn't mean we have to necessarily respect their culture. No law, society, culture, nation, judge, etc. have a "right" to anyone's respect or compliance. It's all a choice we make.

For many people violent language is offensive and hurtful and of course is provocative to others to act, it can be as dangerous as getting your skull cracked open although granted- not as obvious or immediate.
But I agree, rights like those other abstract constructs of society beauty, justice, anti-football etc don't really exist, and as Mao said all power comes from the barrel of a gun, because without the last resort to force any law is meaningless and err- unenforceable.

Coombs wrote:

Rights don't exist, absolutely.

Absolutely, as in no sense of the word (or words - rights and exist)?

Nobody has the right to free anything... to punish someone either. Societal constructs (not... unnatural).. have been created for the sake of individual survival through collective order.
My big question is, at what point is order restricting freedom in a way that is nonessential for individual survival (through the collective order and safety).

It seems according to this that though no one has any natural right (god given, or "existing" in some of the senses I think you have in mind), that humans have a double (possibly conflicting) interest: the individual one, and the common one. Since they live together ("urban living") it is not unnatural to them to create rules that see for those double edged interests, including voluntarily restricting themselves. For example they might restrict any one from harming anyone else.
Now if they all agree on that, and all commit to the rules and take upon themselves the duties as indicated by the law, it would seem that according to this each and every one of the citizens might conclude that they have a right not to be harmed by someone else (and other rights which mirror the indicated duties in the same way).

This is not some kind of fairy tale: in most western countries that is basically how things are understood to be.
It is understood in a strong enough way the the said rights are commonly organized in different "bills of rights", and are a corner stone for most judicial systems. (I'm not claiming that is the only route to induce rights, or that indeed the said bills consist of only such right. Indeed, different societies do have their ways, some of which are not necessarily defensible).

No law, society, culture, nation, judge, etc. have a "right" to anyone's respect or compliance. It's all a choice we make.

So we can return to the beginning: they may not have a god given right, but then you said it yourself: the societal construct is natural, and the agreement people make for their own interest just is the choice they make. That general, wider and interest engulfing choice to live with/under a pact - to abide by the laws we made ourselves - has to mean that we have a duty to respect the judge, the law, etc. - and that just means that they do have a right to such respect. I'm not saying it - you did.

In a less abstract way (more to the specific case), I agree with your intuition that here the interests of society (or the presumed ones, I'm not sure if the real ones) are too easily preferred to the individual's (thus trumping his rights 🙂 ).
I don't, however, support the too easy distinction between the said and done (physical violence - verbal one). It is rather complicated, and judgment there needs to take account of more than one principle, I think, but the simple "verbal just is violence lite" doesn't cover it all (think of consequences: one physically violent act leaves somebody dirty and hurting, but nothing will remain beyond a shower and a good night sleep; vs another plainly verbal act, which directly instigates a chain of events that cause the death of several human beings. And no, you can't escape with "it's the killings and not the uttering" - just build the case in a way it is the uttering. Enough times it is).

Burnwinter wrote:

I agree with:

  • Moral principles are only truly relevant in so far as they can be enforced
  • By and large the law has no place in the affairs of isolated individuals

Nice post there, burnsy (I agree with much of it, though I'm not sure about the Stacey case itself. Anyway, I didn't really dig in to what he really did, and, shitty person that I am, my heart doesn't really bleed for him). Two small points about the bolded quotes:

Relevant - don't mean to be fussy, but - relevant for what? surely not relevant to care about. We may hold this "healthy" pragmatic stance in general, and create realistic laws that can be followed and sentenced upon. They need to take account of circumstances to be realistic. But if it is not relevant in any other sense, we lose sight of changing circumstances, and the need to change the laws. In other words: moral principles do have a relevance beyond the possibility of enforcing (think of a clear moral intuition which we just ignore for the sake of making pragmatic laws, because at this time you can't really follow the details. Now the next day someone comes with this new technology that makes the details a very small matter, thus making the un-enforceable of yesterday a simple affair today. If we gave up on the non-relevant yesterday, we'd be ticked today. We'd have to settle for the less moral principle).

The second I think you mean "private affairs"? I which case I'd agree, obviously. But not so if it's as it reads.

What I mean is that when making and enforcing laws the officers of state should visualise how things should be, but then proceed based on what can be done.

Supposed parts of the social covenant that go unenforced are untested, unexercised, and yes, irrelevant. The Occupy movement, for example, has exposed that the right to free assembly has been eroded while not being exercised.

I would rather violate an idiot's free speech for £1 if it would obtain the same nett social dividend that can be achieved by patiently explaining the facts of life to him for £10. Of course, incarceration is expensive, so we trade off on the assumption that others like Stacey will be deterred by the reports of his sentence.

Regarding "private affairs" I think there are blurred lines there, too, but by and large in so much as they're extra-social, they need not, within reason, be subject to the social contract.

Not to divert the discussion but, as you mentioned it, I cycled past the 'occupy limehouse' settlement earlier in the week. It's the most pitiful thing I have ever seen; they are camping on a strip of grass no more than 10 square metres and in a place that maybe 60-70% of people in the local area aren't even aware exists, let alone the rest of the nation/world.

There are maybe 15 tents at the absolute maximum there and the whole thing is a really bad joke.

Just to contextualize that a little for those without an in-depth knowledge of London; I imagine that they are supposed to be 'demonstrating' or 'disrupting' the canary wharf area which is basically the finance district now. (big red circle)

I didn't bother to attend the local Occupy protest here (which was even more pitiful, and even more entitled).

It was never going to be an armed proletarian uprising / mass movement / Arab Spring like scenario in any OECD country though, that was just the delusion of handful of Marxists.

Makes it even more interesting to see that in many different countries governments have felt obliged to send in riot police on dawn raids to displace such a motley crew of camping yippies.

That much is true and probably the reason why that settlement is so far away; the canary wharf private defence force wouldn't let them get anywhere near. Same reason the riots and looting had no effect here.

As an aside and while the pics are up, that four seasons hotel near the big roundabout is where Arsenal used to stay pre-home game. Not sure if that is the case this season, as I haven't seen them in a while.

Yeah, the Occupy folks I know are quite aware of what they can and can't get away with - not really that interested in confronting police. I think that's been the case most places.

You should've seen how laughable Occupy was in Calgary in early Canadian winter, actually 😆

The 99% meme was a striking internet success, and one which highlighted the incapacity of representative democracy to prosecute the hypothetical 'tyranny' of the majority. As in, it doesn't allow the masses to protect themselves from exploitation, which is the only thing it's even theoretically much good at.

EDIT: removed a pretty OT bit of incendiary nonsense at the end.

shit - just missed it. I'd love to have seen it (removed stuff 🙂 ). Don't mean to re-open anything, but just to clarify:

state should visualise how things should be color=#FF0000[/color], but then proceed based on what can be done color=#FF0000[/color].

(1) would be the "idealistic" version, and (2) the pragmatic.
In the earlier post I meant that though we may want to conduct our affairs with a fair bit of pragmatism, we don't necessarily need to forget about all else (or, if we do, maybe keep our pragmatism with broad enough horizons to be able to revise itself, and import idealistic stuff when circumstances permit). And, IMO, the occupy example and eroded right shows (as you wanted? contrary? I wasn't sure) that this idealistic horizon is always relevant, rather than prove it's irrelevance. Question is, of course (as I tried to indicate earlier) relevant in what sense, and for which purpose.

I would rather violate an idiot's free speech for £1 if it would obtain the same nett social dividend that can be achieved by patiently explaining the facts of life to him for £10. Of course, incarceration is expensive, so we trade off on the assumption that others like Stacey will be deterred by the reports of his sentence.

Parts of this are surely sensible: that "numbers count" (most philosophers today don't argue with that), though I'm not sure if there wouldn't be some strong objection in the specific case of balancing these specific values (freedom of speech vs efficiency; or other forms of public good) in this way. To be sure, that he's "an idiot" is a bit peculiar here: on one hand we all know what you mean, and are in some way biased in that direction. On the other, we might want to keep it impartial, as much as possible, even though we know we're paying a price on particular events. The danger is always that we'll get it wrong, and the slippery slope of allowing such bias to lead us, and you never know which values would be preferred next.

A rights type thinking in this context is in a way "slippery slope proof": it is by nature relating to absolute things. "you can't do this to me". "I have a right to..." - not be harmed, legal council, lead the private life that I choose, etc.

Captain wrote:

Not to divert the discussion but, as you mentioned it, I cycled past the 'occupy limehouse' settlement earlier in the week. It's the most pitiful thing I have ever seen; they are camping on a strip of grass no more than 10 square metres and in a place that maybe 60-70% of people in the local area aren't even aware exists, let alone the rest of the nation/world.

There are maybe 15 tents at the absolute maximum there and the whole thing is a really bad joke.

😆

Todays youth will only rebel if you take away their X-boxes.

Burnwinter wrote:

You should've seen how laughable Occupy was in Calgary in early Canadian winter, actually 😆

The 99% meme was a striking internet success, and one which highlighted the incapacity of representative democracy to prosecute the hypothetical 'tyranny' of the majority. As in, it doesn't allow the masses to protect themselves from exploitation, which is the only thing it's even theoretically much good at.

EDIT: removed a pretty OT bit of incendiary nonsense at the end.

😆 Thats funny, and a little sad.

Contrast this kind of protest to the internet "strike" by Wiki, that really frightened the Man.
Disruption on the internet is the best manifestation of the 21st century, and would be cyber-fuhrer Stacy knew it.

Edit: Aww Burnsy, put it back in.

yuv wrote:

Absolutely, as in no sense of the word (or words - rights and exist)?

Yes and yes, but in this context I really only meant that rights in an absolute sense (as in beyond the zaheri world) do not exist, and that I absolutely agree with that stance.

I do think it is a double-edged sword insofar as the collective order vs personal liberties debate. What I meant to stress is that how far you want to be cut on one side or the other is a subjective choice and, perhaps more importantly, a cultural choice (as in, not a divine choice).

Also, I did not mean to imply (if I did) that verbal abuse is not hurtful, and I understand that words are extremely powerful and can set events in motion that can directly effect the individual survival of many, many people (millions, sometimes). It is my outlook, however, that these are the dangers that we risk by living as part of society, and subscribing to a culture/code of laws in the first place. If we do not accept this risk, and try to work as a society of societies to avoid such catastrophes in a peaceful and reasonable manner (rather than smite small-time offenders with guilty prejudice, thus removing the blame from "us") then we risk getting into the territory of "preemptive strikes" and cops will start arresting themselves for crimes they believe they are fated to commit based on a couple of negligent words spoken in haste (or stupidity). A lot of things have been done on the basis of "crime prevention" that have resulted in a lot of death and pain.

Last thing I'd like to say on that topic is that the cause of most (if not all) criminal behavior is human (i.e. "because" of something someone said or did), and that punishing a human for potentially causing violence or directly endangering individual survival opens the door to punishment for suspicion of wrong-doing. When suspects become criminals then we are guilty before proven innocent, and that terrifies me more than Liam Stacey's tweets.

@[deleted] Since a knowable absolute standard of idiocy is both theoretically, and certainly pragmatically impossible, I'm happy to content myself with my own affirmation of Stacey's idiocy, coupled with the consensus implied by "we all know what you mean, and are in some way biased in that direction" ...

Since inaction is itself a form of action, and admitting "debate" a form of concession in argument that in many cases is the only foothold an equally groundless opposition requires to push itself to the fore, I still say: bang him up. Simple answer.

Coombs and Burnsy - I enjoy discussing this, there's much to say, but I feel we got to the core. We share some things, we definitely have differences on others, but it's all cool. Just takes a bit of time, and I feel it's unfair each time I write one of these, knowing it can't even scratch the surface.

I find very interesting how some on here reflect the philosophical zeit geist, despite a defiant spirit. And on the other hand, here am I, normally defiant, but find myself having to persuade people there are some senses of the concept "rights" which can be real...🙂. Quite funny.

I apologize for sometimes dragging this beyond what is intuitively satisfactory - it's not something I can resist (a type of a self slippery slope I can't resist, as I've been in this type of shit for too many years). But credit to you guys for an open mind, and very sensible views and perceptive approach. I'll continue when I have a bit of time.

Ah yes - coombs: the worry, as a "where could this go", is something I share. Also regarding the "what's worse" type of sphere (which, in the beginning of this, led me to more or less the same thought as yours: that prick could personally be kicked all the way to hell and back, as far as I'm concerned; but he's not really the dramatic story in this).

@[deleted] The discussion reminds me of the bad/hallowed old days of Usenet.

Interesting conversation, but I feel we've veered into territory where we're all underqualified to continue, and way off topic. To be fair I'm very familiar with that situation 🙂

Just hope Muamba recovers well and Stacey learns his lesson.