Scottish Dude "Guilty" of being "Grossly Offensive"

[Taco-Calamitous]

So this has been a hot topic among my Twitter circles. A dude called "Count Dankula" (can't recall his real name) taught his girlfriend's pug to do the roman salute when hearing phrases such as "gas the jews," and others I forget, in order to piss her off. He said something about juxtaposing the cutest thing he could think of (the pug) with the least cute thing he could think of (Nazis). Because he filmed this and put it up on YouTube, he was charged with "hate speech," put through a multi-year trial, and was recently convicted of being "grossly offensive."

The following video is the best at explaining why all of this is bullshit:

However, just to articulate why I disagree with this sentencing in my own words... It was a joke. There was no intended target to be the victim of his "hate speech." The dude is no fan of Nazis, and was, in fact, making fun of them. And, most importantly: where does it end? Who decides what's "grossly offensive?" What scientific studies have they conducted to determine what constitutes being "grossly offensive?" Is there a scale, based on scientific formula, to measure by? Or is it subjective, based on what certain members of society deem "offensive," and not what others deem "offensive?"

Say words. Post thoughts. If you piss me off, I might yell at you. But I won't call the cops, lolol

[Spooniest]

Questioning the ways of the world are you? Who can blame you? You're no more the first than the last.

Try going up against nature sometime. Society can be ridiculously stupid, but nature doesn't bloody care whether it splatters you into big chewy chunks one way or the other.

[Pete]

Welcome to 2018, where everyone is offended by literally everything.

I'm offended by how far society has gone off the deep end. Sure, the guy training the dog is a little douchey, but it's still kind of funny. If anything, he should be charged with doing something in poor taste. The fact that taxpayer dollars were wasted on this is the real crime.

[Rowan]

I'm doing research into this topic for uni and I actually saw a video where a uni student, an academic actually said "She has a right not to be offended"

Ladies and gentleman (and trans, and non binary and whateverthefuck), this is the new world.

[Taco-Calamitous]

I'm doing research into this topic for uni and I actually saw a video where a uni student, an academic actually said "She has a right not to be offended"

Personally, I loved Jordan Peterson's response to Cathy Newman when she spouted similar nonsense:

[Pete]

It's easy to not be offended. Change the channel, turn the radio dial, or close the web page.

Conversely, people have the right to be offended, and to express it. It's just as easy to choose not to read, listen or watch.

The problem is outrage culture and the internet feeding it. People have instant access to give their opinions, whether or not anyone actually wants to hear them. People wind up getting ostracized for having differing opinions that are less radical. There's no middle ground anymore, everyone is either a communist or a Nazi.

[Rowan]

It's easy to not be offended. Change the channel, turn the radio dial, or close the web page.

Conversely, people have the right to be offended, and to express it. It's just as easy to choose not to read, listen or watch.

The problem is outrage culture and the internet feeding it. People have instant access to give their opinions, whether or not anyone actually wants to hear them. People wind up getting ostracized for having differing opinions that are less radical. There's no middle ground anymore, everyone is either a communist or a Nazi.

rather be a nazi than a communist.

[Spooniest]

Don't forget those of us who are Commie Nazis.

[Alpha]

Interestingly that kind of thing is illegal in Germany, and has been for a long time since the destruction of fascism.

I don't think there's really an issue with suppressing actual fascism. That is to say, there's an irony in that in order to protect freedom of speech, we may need to prevent some people exercising it; specifically, those who think others should not have free speech, like fascists and communists.

[Pete]

Well there's good reason why it's illegal in Germany. I absolutely respect the idea of "never again".

I also think there's a difference between being an actual Nazi and comparing your boss to Hitler.

I don't think that what this guy did was smart by any means, but I don't know if it actually qualifies as hate speech. Can people be offended by it, absolutely, that's their right, but it's a long way away from him dressing up like the SS or defacing a Synagogue, or even going onto websites and spouting hate speech.

[Taco-Calamitous]

Personally, I think one of the things John Stuart Mill got right was his stance on unpopular opinions, and their importance to political discourse, as well as people as citizens, in general. It is better to hear the unpopular opinion from someone who genuinely holds it than someone who disagrees with it, because they know their position better than anyone else, and offer the best defense for it. Hearing their arguments for their unpopular opinion will reinforce your position against it. Or to quote him directly:

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

Also, yeah, what Pete said about what Dankula did not approaching fascism. The context was that he was making fun of Nazis, not glorifying them.

[Spooniest]

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

Doesn't that treat truth and error as binary states?

Aren't they anything but?

[Taco-Calamitous]

You're going to have to expand on that thought for me to get what you're saying, but I'm pretty sure that what he was saying there was that, if the unpopular opinion is actually the correct one, being unable to hear it will rob one of correcting their stance. ie, in this instance, "error" = "wrong," or "false."

[Spooniest]

Uhm

Truth is not in error.
Things which are in error are not true.

These precepts, while logically correct, are not the end-all-be-all of determining what truth and error are. I find it curious that 'truth' and 'error' are used when the primary binary relationship being expressed is 'truth' and 'falsehood.'

Truth and error are not binary states, it's not just black and white. It is far more difficult to tell whether something is the truth, in many cases, than simply pointing to yes or no, on or off, binary states. That is, situations in which there are only two paths to choose.

When people ask me if I lean left or right, I have to reply "There are only two ways to get from the center of a sphere to the edge? Gosh there seem to be an infinite number of directions available to me."

Things can even be true in one way and in error in another...but I mean this gets into some pretty detailed and granular thinking.

[Taco-Calamitous]

Well, I'm not sure what you just said really contradicts the spirit of that Mill quote. I think we might be getting a bit hung up on semantics.