The Good News Only - thread...

[mudsticks]

In today's good news:

My son won his first boxing match last Saturday.

My brother is having top surgery today.

I got a job.

Hooray!

Well done.

Wot sorta job.??

The dream one? Or "It'll do for now" type.?

 

[AndyRM]

Well done.

Wot sorta job.??

The dream one? Or "It'll do for now" type.?

Thank you!

Far from the dream - that'd be getting paid to write, or draw pictures.

Steward at St. James' Park. Which is a pretty incredible stadium and it'll be cool spending time there.

 

[mudsticks]

No, what Paley means @mudsticks, approves of someone being afraid to speak out when it's something she disagrees with.

But for something with which they agree, people like her are all for rights and free speech.

In other words, they are hypocrites.

@mudsticks is far from being alone in this, and far from being the worst offender.

I believe some of those nasty, right wing commentators may call it the cancel culture.

Not a phrase I tend to use, but it does have a genuine meaning.

I reserve the right to disapprove (heartily) when people do hate speech.

My (or others) disapproval hasn't 'cancelled' other peoples hate speech, sadly.
Id be very surprised if my, or anyone elses' 'disagreement' troubles them at all.

As the hate speech still goes on - despite people pointing out the nastiness.

Free speech is not an absolute liberty, it comes with conditions.

Such as not inciting hatred.

I'd have thought that someone who claims to be a journalist would know the basics.

Clearly that's not the case.

 

[Deleted member 49]

Thank you!

Far from the dream - that'd be getting paid to write, or draw pictures.

Steward at St. James' Park. Which is a pretty incredible stadium and it'll be cool spending time there.

Newcastle steward ! This is the good news only thread....
Chuffed for you...hope you enjoy it.

 

[AndyRM]

Newcastle steward ! This is the good news only thread....
Chuffed for you...hope you enjoy it.

Thank you! I'm really looking forward to it.

 

[Pale Rider]

I reserve the right to disapprove (heartily) when people do hate speech.

My (or others) disapproval hasn't 'cancelled' other peoples hate speech, sadly.
Id be very surprised if my, or anyone elses' 'disagreement' troubles them at all.

As the hate speech still goes on - despite people pointing out the nastiness.

Free speech is not an absolute liberty, it comes with conditions.

Such as not inciting hatred.

I'd have thought that someone who claims to be a journalist would know the basics.

Clearly that's not the case.

Playing the incitement card is a tactic, but you will never get past your false first premise.

No one is advocating - that I've seen - drowning or shooting asylum seekers.

Thus hate speech is a diversion from my point - too many people want to see opinions they don't like suppressed.

You see it on here all the time, but also elsewhere.

As a market gardener, you couldn't be expected to know that, but as a politically active person, you really should know the basics.

 

[theclaud]

No, what Paley means @mudsticks, approves of someone being afraid to speak out when it's something she disagrees with.

But for something with which they agree, people like her are all for rights and free speech.

In other words, they are hypocrites.

@mudsticks is far from being alone in this, and far from being the worst offender.

I believe some of those nasty, right wing commentators may call it the cancel culture.

Not a phrase I tend to use, but it does have a genuine meaning.

But what exactly is it that you (or 'they') are afraid of, Paley? Is it that when you speak your mind you might open a window though which others might glimpse the yawning void where your heart ought to be?

 

[Bromptonaut]

No one is advocating - that I've seen - drowning or shooting asylum seekers.

No one here that I've seen.

Other places though I certainly have.

 

[matticus]

In today's good news:

My son won his first boxing match last Saturday.

My brother is having top surgery today.

So did your son beat up your brother in this match? Is the surgery serious?!? :O

 

[theclaud]

No one is advocating - that I've seen - drowning or shooting asylum seekers.

The Greek coastguard drowned about 600 people last month, while Frontex watched. No one with half a brain doubts that Braverman would send the Navy to sink boats if she thought she could get away with it.

 

[mudsticks]

Playing the incitement card is a tactic, but you will never get past your false first premise.

No one is advocating - that I've seen - drowning or shooting asylum seekers.

Thus hate speech is a diversion from my point - too many people want to see opinions they don't like suppressed.

You see it on here all the time, but also elsewhere.

As a market gardener, you couldn't be expected to know that, but as a politically active person, you really should know the basics.

Given your alleged profession one would think it would be all too easy for you to find the many examples on social media and elsewhere, where incitement to violence against, and glee at the misfortune of asylum seekers, can be found .

Clearly you've not been paying attention.

I'll take it you've never heard anything of Katie (Let them drown) Hopkins, or Steven Yaxley Lennon - just two examples of many who spew hatred, who are cheered on by bigoted followers.

As I've said before, take a look at the comments section of any right wing news outlet.

I don't see any 'cancelling' going on there.

Or view any of the mainstream social medias.
If you're not looking at them you're only getting half the story.

What you call 'cancelling' is people objecting to being called out, for airing views that are hateful.

They may feel their hatred is defensible.

Many of us don't, and are free to say as much.

The fact that some people are too fragile, or incapable of defending their view is on them.

 

[Deleted member 159]

I didn't know affection was the question. Here's your intriguing question that started all this:

"So one more rape is dismissed so flippantly. You need to look at yourself and decide where your allegiance sits. Do you put your family ahead of everyone else or the illegal immigrant ?"

Where is your allegiance - the rapist brother or the victim? Come on, help me dig into this properly!

Don't you have set standards which have boundaries?


I would disown my brother for doing such an awful act if had a brother. The victim would have my greatest sympathy.

I'd bet you would want me to pay compensation for someone's else deed?

 

[Pale Rider]

But what exactly is it that you (or 'they') are afraid of, Paley? Is it that when you speak your mind you might open a window though which others might glimpse the yawning void where your heart ought to be?

There's no fear, it's the attempt to suppress.

As regards speaking out 'opening a window', it just comes with the territory.

I want to get my point across on some topics.

I'd rather people concentrate on the point, not the person making it, but that's a forlorn hope on here.

As indicated by the last part of your post about exposing 'the gaping void where my heart should be'.

Clearly you've not been paying attention.

Not to social media, no, because I don't have any apart from here.

Although I am aware there are many examples of people getting away with stuff that I could never touch as a mainstream journalist.

That's probably one reason why I don't get involved - I'd never be able to fight my corner playing legally and nicely against those who disregard the law and have no idea/don't care about publishing ethics.

 

[icowden]

No one is advocating - that I've seen - drowning or shooting asylum seekers.

The UK Government advocated training border force to turn back migrants at sea. Effectively advocating letting the drown rather than land in the UK. This was a plan developed by Priti "send em back where they came from including my parents" Patel.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...-public-back-idea_uk_613a03cce4b09519c501435f

This was the government's first attempt at an immigration policy which violated international maritime law, and which was roundly condemned by other countries as being inhumane.

 

[mudsticks]

Not to social media, no, because I don't have any apart from here.

Although I am aware there are many examples of people getting away with stuff that I could never touch as a mainstream journalist.

That's probably one reason why I don't get involved - I'd never be able to fight my corner playing legally and nicely against those who disregard the law and have no idea/don't care about publishing ethics.

You don't have to be on, or actively involved in social media to pay proper attention to it.

If you're not paying attention to its effects then you have closed yourself off to something that is having massive sway in the political world right now

Pretty poor form for a supposed journalist.