Longrider

This time from some arse called Andre Oboler.

Facebook has decided not to remove groups that deny the Holocaust. This policy contradicts its own “statement of rights and responsibilities“, which clearly states “you will not post content that is hateful”. Facebook seems to be ignorant of the inherent danger of Holocaust denial, the deeply hateful nature of it, and international efforts against racism. It either fails to understand the responsibility it has to society, or it has placed profit far above morality.

Sigh…

What is it about this generation that it has lost sight of the principle of free speech? A principle that previous generations fought and died for. That holocaust deniers are a bunch of deluded fuckwits is besides the point, when we restrict their freedom of speech, we restrict all freedom of speech. That is the principle. So, let them deny the holocaust – then challenge them out in the open. Facebook (piss be upon it) is right on this one.

Holocaust denial is illegal in 13 countries.

And it shouldn’t be.

Facebook’s move comes at a time when the British public are still recovering from the election of the BNP’s Nick Griffin, a Holocaust denier, to represent them in the European parliament.

Are we? I’m not “recovering” at all. I merely wait for Griffin to make a complete arse of himself as, sooner or later, he will.

The internet requires regulation,

Here we go… No it does not, you fucking little authoritarian jerk.

—————————————-

Update: John b mentions the inconsistency of Facebook’s terms in the comments. Not having ever felt inclined to join Facebook, I have never looked at them. However, I suspect that when they talk about hateful content it probably refers to personal attacks and bullying as there have been cases of this. I also suspect that with holocaust denial, they are applying the first amendment principle of free speech. Holocaust denial may be unpleasant and delusional, but is not directed at an individual, nor is it bullying. If I am right, there is no inconsistency.

Cats manipulate us, apparently…

Researchers at the University of Sussex have discovered that cats use a “soliciting purr” to overpower their owners and garner attention and food.

I’m flabbergasted, yes, indeed, really I am. I never knew that. No, really… Stop laughing at the back.

I see that others have picked up on Richard Murphy’s latest little temper tantrum.

I have noted (and those who read the comments on this blog will also have noticed) that my blogs in support of government spending – which is the only (and I stress only) way to avoid depression in the UK and other economies – have not gone down well with the libertarian community. They think that all tax is theft; all government activity is bad and those who win a mandate for government spending from democratic electorates are ‘statists’.

I suspect that this little fit of petulance is, as is usual, because people have dared to point out that Murphy is talking twaddle. The idea that raising taxes and spending our way out of recession is a sensible policy takes a fairly large degree of delusional thinking to rationalise. You do not spend your way out of debt – ask anyone who fell for those nice adverts on the telly offering them thousands of pounds to pay off their debts. That worked out well for them, didn’t it? It doesn’t work, it never has and it never will.

The problem here is that Murphy cannot take being challenged. His response to a contrary opinion is to censor and claim that those who disagree with his wibble are no better than racists. To any causal observer, he is a fool. To anyone paying attention, he is an enemy of reason and certainly an enemy of liberty. His belief in the state being the benevolent provider of all our needs is not only deeply flawed on so many levels, it is misanthropic in the extreme. For this man who peddles what is little more than communism to claim that libertarianism is vicious is laughable in the extreme. His philosophy is proven to be nasty, violent, destructive and misanthropic.

I do not believe in this callous, self interested view of life. It offends my Christian beliefs that suggest we have a duty as a society to fulfil the instruction – present in all major religions – but not in libertarianism that we love our neighbour as ourselves.

No, libertarians believe that people are inherently capable of looking after their own lives – they do not need god-botherers to tell them what to do and they don’t need the state to look after them. They can, in fact, do it perfectly well for themselves. It is Murphy who is the misanthropist here, not the libertarian. It’s also a strawman to suggest that we do not love our neighbours or would not wish to help them. Libertarians do not oppose collective action, nor do they oppose the idea of looking after those unable to look after themselves (Timmy pretty much sums that one up). And, frankly, it disgusts me when people use their religious belief as an excuse for their behaviour. Being a Christian does not justify using tax as a punishment. In fact, religion should play no part in one’s work, it is a private matter and should remain so.

I make clear I think this as repugnant as racism.

Then you are an idiot. A repugnant idiot at that.

Why is it then that this vicious, self interested and, might I suggest inherently socially violent group are allowed to make this sort of contribution – as they do all over so many blogs where those with real concern for society, from across the mainstream political spectrum, seek to discuss issues in an open, rational and respectful fashion?

As Timmy points out; freedom of speech. Clearly this is something Murphy cannot stomach. That he deletes perfectly reasonable comments from his blog is testimony to this. Of course, he is entitled to do this on his own space; but make no mistake, this man is an enemy of reasoned discourse, and his ideas on tax as a punitive tool make him an enemy of liberty and society as a whole. Despite his claims of being a centrist, he is an extreme statist.

I would love, for example, to see far-right libertarians thrown off the Guardian [sic]bogs as a matter of course – which might improve their appeal to many others as a result.

Yes, I’m sure you would, you nasty little turd. I note that his somewhat flexible “Christian values” do not extend to respecting others’ freedom of speech. His ideas must be “respected” ours must be banned. That, frankly, is all you need to know about this evil little man.

It is time we named these people for what they are – as being amongst the enemies of civilised society.

I’m sure that I can return the favour; Richard Murphy, enemy of liberty, misanthropist, statist, and an anathema to civilised discourse. Sixty years ago, we fought against a nation that adopted this type of thinking. For four decades afterwards, we held it at bay before it rightly collapsed. Murphy clearly pays no heed to history.

I see that the panic mongers want to immunise the whole population against swine flu.

THE entire UK population is to be vaccinated against swine flu following the death of the first healthy British patient.

The NHS will receive the new vaccine in the next few weeks and is expected to fast-track the drug through regulatory approval within five days.

That’s sixty million people. The logistics alone make the plan absurd. Then there’s the little matter of whether there is, indeed, a pandemic. Flu happens. Usually in winter. Any thoughts on plan accordingly, anyone? Sometimes people die, either from the illness or from complications caused by underlying health conditions. Shit happens. We all die sometime and for some, it will be flu that carries them off. That does not mean that we all need to have a jab – as flu is normally an inconvenience, not a killer.

Ah, but, it’s the inconvenience that is the issue, it seems:

He stressed the reason public vaccination was taking place was not because the virus was perceived as a killer but that society could not cope with a high percentage of the population off work ill. The jabs would also reduce the number of people who require hospitalisation.

Really? So we’re all going to get swine flu at the same time, just as we all got CJD, SARS and bird flu…

Fortunately, I do not live in the UK anymore, so will be spared the nonsense. Not that I would have gone meekly along to my GP’s surgery for a jab anyway. What, I wonder, will be the plan for the refusniks?