Offensive Comedy? (1 Viewer)

[Deleted member 5849]

I leave this here with trepidation...

Man guilty of hate crime over 'Nazi pug'

Here's his youtube channel

Count Dankula

Now... some may have been deleted for all I know (such as the offending video which has been, unsurprisingly!) but I don't know. It's obviously... offensive to most (you'd think!). Does it deserve a criminal conviction however? A judge thinks so... but as we all know, skybluetalk is often better informed than judges, so you decide

 

[Otis]

Yeah. Criminal conviction is right without doubt.

Or did you want me to watch the video before deciding?

Thought it best to go with CoE vs Life of Brian stance.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

I'm guessing the dog is getting thrown in jail too right?

It's more proof we are seeing a clamp down on free speech. What he did was clearly a joke.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I'm guessing the dog is getting thrown in jail too right?

It's more proof we are seeing a clamp down on free speech. What he did was clearly a joke.

But does free speech allow for the right to offend others?

I ask that question as I'm asking myself. FWIW I'm slightly uncomfortable about this conviction, so I'm not automatically saying that yes it's right he was.

I doubt we'd share a pint comfortably unless we found a mutual love of third rate football or something, but I'm also not convinced he's meant to spread hate speech or normalise an atrocity. I certainly wouldn't call him a comic genius(!) but there is a tradition of holding horrors up to scrutiny by making them a farce. That's complex... whether you're laughing with or at.

Now in the interests of research I've sat through some of his other videos... he wouldn't be out of place in some of the threads on this board, tbh!

 

[ConnorDevine]

It's quite an interesting one, it's boring as anything seeing idiots spouting shit and using 'free speech' as an excuse but this is a potentially worrying route. People who misuse free speech need to be ignored and not prosecuted, it wasn't personal or directed from what I heard, just a grown man acting like he was 13 years old.

Seems like we've gone so liberal that we're embracing Puritanism, which is inherently not liberal, very weird political climate we live in.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

But does free speech allow for the right to offend others?

I ask that question as I'm asking myself. FWIW I'm slightly uncomfortable about this conviction, so I'm not automatically saying that yes it's right he was.

I doubt we'd share a pint comfortably unless we found a mutual love of third rate football or something, but I'm also not convinced he's meant to spread hate speech or normalise an atrocity. I certainly wouldn't call him a comic genius(!) but there is a tradition of holding horrors up to scrutiny by making them a farce. That's complex... whether you're laughing with or at.

Now in the interests of research I've sat through some of his other videos... he wouldn't be out of place in some of the threads on this board, tbh!

I find that calling something 'hate speech' is always the convinient argument to shut down counter arguments to be honest.

I also think someone's right to be offended should generally mean naff all. The video in its full context was clearly a joke, even if it was shit comedy. This has clearly gone too far, even if it was a bit sour taste.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

It's quite an interesting one, it's boring as anything seeing idiots spouting shit and using 'free speech' as an excuse but this is a potentially worrying route. People who misuse free speech need to be ignored and not prosecuted, it wasn't personal or directed from what I heard, just a grown man acting like he was 13 years old.

Seems like we've gone so liberal that we're embracing Puritanism, which is inherently not liberal, very weird political climate we live in.

'Free speech' is not an excuse, it's the plain truth. If you start clamping down on jokes then where do you draw the line?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I find that calling something 'hate speech' is always the convinient argument to shut down counter arguments to be honest.

Nah, there are plenty of things that are downright offensive and dangerous, and should be banned. I don't want islamists advocating chopping your head off and encouraging people to go off and do it, do you? Nor do I want a good old fashioned cross burning to be advertised in downtown Holbrooks.

Where to draw the line is not easy, but get it wrong and it fuels paranoia.

 

[skybluetony176]

I'm guessing the dog is getting thrown in jail too right?

It's more proof we are seeing a clamp down on free speech. What he did was clearly a joke.

How is this anything to do with freedom of speech in any way shape or form? Neither he or the dog was making a statement. He was just being a dick making a poor taste joke in the poorest of ways.

 

[Sick Boy]

I find that calling something 'hate speech' is always the convinient argument to shut down counter arguments to be honest.

I also think someone's right to be offended should generally mean naff all. The video in its full context was clearly a joke, even if it was shit comedy. This has clearly gone too far, even if it was a bit sour taste.

I take it that you'd see attempts to label extremist Muslims as spreading hate as an attempt to shut down their counter argument?

 

[Grendel]

I’m not really sure what would motivate anyone to behave like this.

I guess it wasn’t meant for public view so should it be a prosecution?

Probably not but it’s all pretty unsavoury stuff

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I guess it wasn’t meant for public view so should it be a prosecution?

Given the number of views his other videos have had, he's either amazingly naive or lying if he claims it wasn't intended for public 'enjoyment'.

 

[vow]

Nah, not offensive, just shit. Comedy/jokes should have no barrier, imo.
Nothing should be excluded. If we went along those lines of, "oh, I shouldn't offend anyone", there would be no jokes.

 

[fernandopartridge]

But does free speech allow for the right to offend others?

I ask that question as I'm asking myself. FWIW I'm slightly uncomfortable about this conviction, so I'm not automatically saying that yes it's right he was.

I doubt we'd share a pint comfortably unless we found a mutual love of third rate football or something, but I'm also not convinced he's meant to spread hate speech or normalise an atrocity. I certainly wouldn't call him a comic genius(!) but there is a tradition of holding horrors up to scrutiny by making them a farce. That's complex... whether you're laughing with or at.

Now in the interests of research I've sat through some of his other videos... he wouldn't be out of place in some of the threads on this board, tbh!

Of course free speech allows for offending others. It must.

 

[ccfchoi87]

Better arrest prince Harry and every other bloke who has dressed up as a nazi before then

 

[Nick]

I don't really mind offensive comedy, some things I won't find funny but it's the same with any comedy.

 

[pastythegreat]

It's a funny one with hate speech, who deems it hate speech? The police? The person it's directed at? A Judge? The Jury?
It's the same as the word racist, they've both been watered down so much by the left. As soon as something is said they don't agree with or something they don't have an answer to, they brand it as hate speech or just shout the word racist.

This video isn't hate speech, just some bloke trying to be funny. Somebody somewhere will find it amusing, but it hasn't made anybody hang up a swastika and kill Jews has it?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It's the same as the word racist, they've both been watered down so much by the left

Not really. Racism is racism and it's nothing to do with 'the left', whatever that is.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Nah, there are plenty of things that are downright offensive and dangerous, and should be banned. I don't want islamists advocating chopping your head off and encouraging people to go off and do it, do you? Nor do I want a good old fashioned cross burning to be advertised in downtown Holbrooks.

Where to draw the line is not easy, but get it wrong and it fuels paranoia.

How is this anything to do with freedom of speech in any way shape or form? Neither he or the dog was making a statement. He was just being a dick making a poor taste joke in the poorest of ways.

I take it that you'd see attempts to label extremist Muslims as spreading hate as an attempt to shut down their counter argument?

It's freedom of speech because he was clearly telling a joke. If he isn't allowed to tell a joke then where do you draw the line? I'm also really worried if you cannot tell the difference between genuine hate speech and a shit attempt at comedy.

1) Someone making their dog do a hitler salute.
2) Someone saying kill everyone who isn't a muslim.

Which of those do you think is a joke, and which one do you think is genuine hate speech?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I'm also really worried if you cannot tell the difference between genuine hate speech and a shit attempt at comedy.

You were the one who made it catch-all, and said "I find that calling something 'hate speech' is always the convinient argument to shut down counter arguments to be honest."

 

[Nick]

Anybody seen Ricky Gervais new show on Netflix? He talks about offensive comedy in there, is true really that people will be offended at different things.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

You were the one who made it catch-all, and said "I find that calling something 'hate speech' is always the convinient argument to shut down counter arguments to be honest."

Yes, calling something hate speech because it doesn't suit your argument is one thing. Shouting 'death to non-muslims' is another. I don't understand how it is so hard to tell the difference. For the record, one of the above posters is right. Some of the hard left have watered down so much potentially genuine hate by constantly being offended by everything and labelling everything as racist etc.

Anyway Stop dodging. Do you think he should go to prison for this?

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Anybody seen Ricky Gervais new show on Netflix? He talks about offensive comedy in there, is true really that people will be offended at different things.

He commented on this case actually:

"A man has been convicted in a UK court of making a joke that was deemed 'grossly offensive'. If you don't believe in a person's right to say things that you might find 'grossly offensive', then you don't believe in Freedom of Speech."

He's not far wrong with that.

 

[Otis]

It's always a tough one. I just know what I am uncomfortable with.

Haven't watched any of the videos, but from the article:

'Seig Heil' - Dog does Hitler salute, no problem with that.

'Gas the Jews' - Dog does a salute, massive problem with that and it is something I am very uncomfortable with.

You can't just have free speech. Well, you can, but there are obviously consequences to what you say.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I don't understand how it is so hard to tell the difference.

Well when you use the catch-all, it's you who is not differentiating.

 

[Liquid Gold]

YouTube should have deleted the video as inappropriate material and given the guy a warning that anything else and his account would be deleted and that should be the end of it. The guy is quite obviously a dickhead but don't see this as hate speech even though "gas the Jews" is an incredibly idiotic thing to brand as comedy. He should have his platform taken away but prison is a bit harsh.

Another surprising thing is why he thought taking Tommy Robinson of the EDL along to court with him might help him look like a balanced non-racist sort of guy.

 

[pastythegreat]

Not really. Racism is racism and it's nothing to do with 'the left', whatever that is.

Well, of course it is!
When your calling somebody a racist or a Nazi simply because they have a different political view to you or because they voted Brexit, it's over using the word in the wrong context and watering it down.
Right now, the 3 favourite words for the left to use when losing an argument are Racist, Nazi or Bigot.


Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[Otis]

Most of us get called lefties simply for pointing out that white supremacists with guns on the streets is not a good idea.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Well, of course it is!
When your calling somebody a racist or a Nazi simply because they have a different political view to you or because they voted Brexit, it's over using the word in the wrong context and watering it down.
Right now, the 3 favourite words for the left to use when losing an argument are Racist, Nazi or Bigot.


Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Also there are a lot of Nazi racist bigots out there. One that sticks out is in the White House (probably actually playing golf in Florida)

 

[Otis]

Also there are a lot of Nazi racist bigots out there. One that sticks out is in the White House (probably actually playing golf in Florida)

Paying little black kids less than minimum wage to go and wash his balls.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

the left

Stupid generalisation.

As bad as me saying the right are racists.

If somebody is a Nazi Racist Bigot, they're a Nazi Racist Bigot.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Well when you use the catch-all, it's you who is not differentiating.

You're wrong again.

Now answer the question. Do you think he should go to prison?

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Most of us get called lefties simply for pointing out that white supremacists with guns on the streets is not a good idea.

Nahhh, but you might get branded as one if you think someone should go to prison for making their dog do a nazi salute though.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Another surprising thing is why he thought taking Tommy Robinson of the EDL along to court with him might help him look like a balanced non-racist sort of guy.

It almost certainly doesn't help him. As I've said before though, if people actually do research into Tommy Robinson you'll see he's not actually a racist, just a massive critic of Islam. The business with the EDL didn't exactly help his argument there though as there were quite a few nazi's joining that, hence why he left.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

You're wrong again.

Look, you made a generalised point, others made it distinct... and then you complain about people not making it distinct.

The only person not doing so was you!