Eminem has a new song for the Generation Z TikTok users who tried to "cancel" him

by Ben Reilly Sat Mar 06, 2021 11:45 pm

Eminem released a new song Friday following a social media campaign from Generation Z TikTok users who sought to cancel the Grammy and Oscar-winning rapper over some of his controversial lyrics.

The music artist shared part of the track's lyrics, which appear to address the backlash, on Twitter.

“I won't stop even when my hair turns grey (I'm tone-deaf) / 'Cause they won't stop until they cancel me,” Eminem wrote alongside a preview of the new lyric video for "Tone Deaf."

The controversy kicked off in February, when a Gen Z TikTok user argued the rapper's 2010 hit "Love The Way You Lie" glorifies toxic relationships and domestic violence.

The hip-hop ballad, which features chart-topping artist Rihanna, describes the dangerous cycle of being trapped within an abusive relationship and the tug of war between love and hate that comes with it. The song came out after both artists were involved in highly public abusive relationships, Rihanna with ex-boyfriend Chris Brown and Eminem with ex-wife Kim Scott.

Fans of Eminem, born Marshall Bruce Mathers III, defended the rapper on social media and pushed back against members of Gen Z, those born roughly from the mid-1990s to the early 2010s.

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/music/young-tiktok-users-tried-canceling-eminem-he-responded-tone-deaf-n1259837

I'm hoping that this helps some people realize the madness of cancel culture. I could rant and rant, but I'll open the floor for discussion instead Smile

by eddie Sat Mar 06, 2021 11:50 pm

Was it the line “If you ever leave again I’m gonna tie you to the bed and set this house on fire”?

It’s a fucking song! What next, ban certain films because they depict murder?

by Ben Reilly Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:14 am

It's insanity, like if you put one toe out of line we're going to turn you into a pariah. I'd wager most of these cancel-culture numbfucks have done something that would cause their fellow numbfucks to try to cancel them.

Far better to have an open conversation about things like this than to have people so afraid of being cancelled that they hide every mistake they've ever made and pretend to be perfect.

by Didgee Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:25 am

Ben Reilly wrote:It's insanity, like if you put one toe out of line we're going to turn you into a pariah. I'd wager most of these cancel-culture numbfucks have done something that would cause their fellow numbfucks to try to cancel them.

Far better to have an open conversation about things like this than to have people so afraid of being cancelled that they hide every mistake they've ever made and pretend to be perfect.

People fail to see that many songs are simple an expression and not meant to be taken literally

Of course some songs are political also

Yet at the end of the day they are simple songs

Which will of course piss some people off

Yet sadly we are now living in a culture of being continually offended over everything

That I put down to the last few decades of parents mollycoddling children

Those kids who shout outrage at everything have never dealt with difficult situations growing up. As they have been wrapped up in cotton wool by their parents. Of course its not just down to certain generations, as this is now spreading like a virus with more people being continually offended

by eddie Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:38 am

Absolutely brilliantly said, didge.

by Didgee Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:41 am

eddie wrote:Absolutely brilliantly said, didge.

Thanks Eddie,

by Ben Reilly Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:45 am

I really wrestle with this because on the one hand, complaining about the lyrics of a song is also free speech.

Where cancel culture rubs me wrong is that it goes from "I'm going to register my complaint" to, basically, "we're going to destroy you."

by Didgee Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:51 am

Ben Reilly wrote:I really wrestle with this because on the one hand, complaining about the lyrics of a song is also free speech.

Where cancel culture rubs me wrong is that it goes from "I'm going to register my complaint" to, basically, "we're going to destroy you."

There is nothing wrong with being critical about a song, that is free speech that everyone should have

A view to cancel a song however is not free speech and at odds with free speech itself

Its taking an authoritarian stance on what people can or cannot say

by eddie Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:53 am

Agreed. If we start censoring songs, where does it stop? Films? Poetry? Paintings?

I wish people would just stop being so fucking “wounded” all the time.

by Ben Reilly Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:54 am

Didgee wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:I really wrestle with this because on the one hand, complaining about the lyrics of a song is also free speech.

Where cancel culture rubs me wrong is that it goes from "I'm going to register my complaint" to, basically, "we're going to destroy you."

There is nothing wrong with being critical about a song, that is free speech that everyone should have

A view to cancel a song however is not free speech and at odds with free speech itself

Its taking an authoritarian stance on what people can or cannot say

Exactly, and this TikToker apparently went so far as to call for Eminem himself to be cancelled -- like that line was so bad, he deserves to be ignored for the rest of his life.

I'm glad the Millennial generation has hit back against this. And as that generation is now turning 40 this year, I hope cancel culture is just a case of silly kids doing silly things. My stepson is 19 so he's right in the middle of Gen Z and I know he'd find the idea of cancelling Eminem utterly ridiculous (and really, cancelling anybody).

by Didgee Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:57 am

eddie wrote:Agreed. If we start censoring songs, where does it stop? Films? Poetry? Paintings?

I wish people would just stop being so fucking “wounded” all the time.

Sadly its already happening Eddie and now corporations wield so much power

The thing is they only end up making said books even more popular, the books banned have now become best sellers again

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-seuss-books-deemed-offensive-will-be-delisted-from-ebay-11614884201

by eddie Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:59 am

I will fight for free speech for as long as I live. And my kids will have free speech in this house.

by Didgee Sun Mar 07, 2021 1:00 am

Ben Reilly wrote:
Didgee wrote:

There is nothing wrong with being critical about a song, that is free speech that everyone should have

A view to cancel a song however is not free speech and at odds with free speech itself

Its taking an authoritarian stance on what people can or cannot say

Exactly, and this TikToker apparently went so far as to call for Eminem himself to be cancelled -- like that line was so bad, he deserves to be ignored for the rest of his life.

I'm glad the Millennial generation has hit back against this. And as that generation is now turning 40 this year, I hope cancel culture is just a case of silly kids doing silly things. My stepson is 19 so he's right in the middle of Gen Z and I know he'd find the idea of cancelling Eminem utterly ridiculous (and really, cancelling anybody).

100% agree

I think at some point social media is going to implode Ben. With the toxic nature it has created with people using a view to be offended to try to have people lose their jobs etc

The only way to stop this is by introducing legislation to ensure people have freedom of expression. That companies are not allowed to sack people for what they sing and say online etc

by Ben Reilly Sun Mar 07, 2021 1:03 am

eddie wrote:Agreed. If we start censoring songs, where does it stop? Films? Poetry? Paintings?

I wish people would just stop being so fucking “wounded” all the time.

This is worse than censorship, to me. Artists back in the day who were censored still got the chance to create new works of art.

This phenomenon is basically saying, "we'll ignore you forever if you do one thing we don't like."

The comedian Sarah Silverman had a fairly famous dialogue with a guy who used to troll anybody who spoke out against Trump. They came to understand each other and he credits her with helping him learn to understand other people's perspectives. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/outintheopen/switching-sides-1.5084481/former-twitter-troll-credits-sarah-silverman-with-helping-him-see-how-important-talking-is-1.5094232

If the cancel culture encountered this guy, they'd just block him and nothing good would have ever come of it.

by Syl Sun Mar 07, 2021 1:21 pm

eddie wrote:I will fight for free speech for as long as I live. And my kids will have free speech in this house.

I agree with you (mostly)
But we can never have a society that allows complete free speech...wars are started over words, people with no moral filter can do irreparable damage with words, kids can be made to feel worthless for life from words....even on a small forum like this, there has to be some limitation to free speech.

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:11 pm

I wish somebody would silence him... His 'music' is shit!

by Guest Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:34 pm

How many people have been banned from here or "put in the naughty room" for the things they have said ?....what about there free speech ,its weird that people are bemoaning the precieved lack of "free Speech" on twitter or facebook, yet even this forum has limits to what people can say or do As it should be ,otherwise you have anarchy and not a nice place to visit

by Guest Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:46 pm

Syl wrote:
eddie wrote:I will fight for free speech for as long as I live. And my kids will have free speech in this house.

I agree with you (mostly)
But we can never have a society that allows complete free speech...wars are started over words, people with no moral filter can do irreparable damage with words, kids can be made to feel worthless for life from words....even on a small forum like this, there has to be some limitation to free speech.

People tend not to care unless it happens to them. having a very disabled daughter i know first hand what hate speech can be like and how it affects a person even in a song
Hell The UK national anthem has "hate speech" in it (although that verse is not sung much any more) Ie "Rebellious scots to crush" (Oh you bloody think so"). many Scots find that offensive, and while its not really sung any-more unless its to direct hate against us it is an an example of hate speech in a song not being tolerated

by Syl Sun Mar 07, 2021 5:32 pm

Korben wrote:
Syl wrote:

I agree with you (mostly)
But we can never have a society that allows complete free speech...wars are started over words, people with no moral filter can do irreparable damage with words, kids can be made to feel worthless for life from words....even on a small forum like this, there has to be some limitation to free speech.
People tend not to care unless it happens to them. having a very disabled daughter i know first hand what hate speech can be like and how it affects a person even in a song
Hell The UK national anthem has "hate speech" in it (although that verse is not sung much any more) Ie "Rebellious scots to crush" (Oh you bloody think so"). many Scots find that offensive, and while its not really sung any-more unless its to direct hate against us it is an an example of hate speech in a song not being tolerated

I didn't know the National Anthem had those words in it Korben. I (like most people I suspect) only know the first verse.

Free speech is great ....or it would be if everyone had a brain, unfortunately they don't, and I can only imagine the things that have been said by idiots to anyone who may have a disability or be different in some way.

We have laws against hate speech, they are there for the good of society.

Unfortunately the internet has allowed many people to write stuff they dare not speak in public, and it's also bred another sector in society that is offended by almost everything.

by Original Quill Sun Mar 07, 2021 6:18 pm

Syl wrote:
eddie wrote:I will fight for free speech for as long as I live. And my kids will have free speech in this house.

I agree with you (mostly)
But we can never have a society that allows complete free speech...wars are started over words, people with no moral filter can do irreparable damage with words, kids can be made to feel worthless for life from words....even on a small forum like this, there has to be some limitation to free speech.

I'm an old-line advocate of free-speech, and I'll once again try to defend it. Wars are actions. Speech is merely expression. If you want to stop wars, do so and I'll be right by your side. But stopping expression is a different matter.

"Moral filter" is an imposition of judgement, and not all judgements are held by all people. If you begin to toss about moral filters, you might stumble on an immoral filter. Hitler did, and people cheered. There are no guarantees, but the freedom to express yourself is the way—sometimes the only way—to avoid bad situations.

by Guest Sun Mar 07, 2021 6:38 pm

Syl wrote:
Korben wrote:
People tend not to care unless it happens to them. having a very disabled daughter i know first hand what hate speech can be like and how it affects a person even in a song
Hell The UK national anthem has "hate speech" in it (although that verse is not sung much any more) Ie "Rebellious scots to crush" (Oh you bloody think so"). many Scots find that offensive, and while its not really sung any-more unless its to direct hate against us it is an an example of hate speech in a song not being tolerated

I didn't know the National Anthem had those words in it Korben. I (like most people I suspect) only know the first verse.

Free speech is great ....or it would be if everyone had a brain, unfortunately they don't, and I can only imagine the things that have been said by idiots to anyone who may have a disability or be different in some way.

We have laws against hate speech, they are there for the good of society.

Unfortunately the internet has allowed many people to write stuff they dare not speak in public, and it's also bred another sector in society that is offended by almost everything.

Around 1745, anti-Jacobite sentiment was captured in a verse appended to the song, with a prayer for the success of Field Marshal George Wade's army then assembling at Newcastle. These words attained some short-term use, although they did not appear in the published version in the October 1745 Gentleman's Magazine. This verse was first documented as an occasional addition to the original anthem by Richard Clark in 1822,and was also mentioned in a later article on the song, published by the Gentleman's Magazine in October 1836. Therein, it is presented as an "additional verse... though being of temporary application only... stored in the memory of an old friend... who was born in the very year 1745, and was thus the associate of those who heard it first sung", the lyrics given being:

Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.

by Guest Sun Mar 07, 2021 6:45 pm

Syl wrote:
Korben wrote:
People tend not to care unless it happens to them. having a very disabled daughter i know first hand what hate speech can be like and how it affects a person even in a song
Hell The UK national anthem has "hate speech" in it (although that verse is not sung much any more) Ie "Rebellious scots to crush" (Oh you bloody think so"). many Scots find that offensive, and while its not really sung any-more unless its to direct hate against us it is an an example of hate speech in a song not being tolerated

Unfortunately the internet has allowed many people to write stuff they dare not speak in public, and it's also bred another sector in society that is offended by almost everything.

And that's the problem, Little to no accountability you can make accusations about anybody on the planet and they have little to no recourse regardless of the damage it does.

by Syl Sun Mar 07, 2021 7:44 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

I agree with you (mostly)
But we can never have a society that allows complete free speech...wars are started over words, people with no moral filter can do irreparable damage with words, kids can be made to feel worthless for life from words....even on a small forum like this, there has to be some limitation to free speech.

I'm an old-line advocate of free-speech, and I'll once again try to defend it. Wars are actions. Speech is merely expression. If you want to stop wars, do so and I'll be right by your side. But stopping expression is a different matter.

"Moral filter" is an imposition of judgement, and not all judgements are held by all people. If you begin to toss about moral filters, you might stumble on an immoral filter. Hitler did, and people cheered. There are no guarantees, but the freedom to express yourself is the way—sometimes the only way—to avoid bad situations.

But wars have to start somewhere...and words provoke actions, actions provoke wars.

I have no problem with anyone expressing themselves, but we (and you) have laws that prevent that expression from causing harm to others.

If we dont have such laws, if people could say whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted, would that suit you?

by Maddog Sun Mar 07, 2021 7:52 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I'm an old-line advocate of free-speech, and I'll once again try to defend it. Wars are actions. Speech is merely expression. If you want to stop wars, do so and I'll be right by your side. But stopping expression is a different matter.

"Moral filter" is an imposition of judgement, and not all judgements are held by all people. If you begin to toss about moral filters, you might stumble on an immoral filter. Hitler did, and people cheered. There are no guarantees, but the freedom to express yourself is the way—sometimes the only way—to avoid bad situations.

But wars have to start somewhere...and words provoke actions, actions provoke wars.

I have no problem with anyone expressing themselves, but we (and you) have laws that prevent that expression from causing harm to others.

If we dont have such laws, if people could say whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted, would that suit you?

Suits me.

Quill is an asshole.

See how that works. Cool

by Syl Sun Mar 07, 2021 7:56 pm

As for the song...if enough people want to listen to his songs and he wants to write and publish them...so what?.

I imagine most kids wont even take in the meaning even if they sing along to them....they don't make much sense to me, but then he is still trying to appeal to the youngsters, not old farts like me.....even though, as he rightly says in his latest song, he is heading that way himself now. Rolling Eyes

by Maddog Sun Mar 07, 2021 7:57 pm

Syl wrote:As for the song...if enough people want to listen to his songs and he wants to write and publish them...so what?.

I imagine most kids wont even take in the meaning even if they sing along to them....they don't make much sense to me, but then he is still trying to appeal to the youngsters, not old farts like me.....even though, as he rightly says in his latest song, he is heading that way himself now.

Well, it's hateful and should be banned. Cool

by Syl Sun Mar 07, 2021 8:00 pm

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:

But wars have to start somewhere...and words provoke actions, actions provoke wars.

I have no problem with anyone expressing themselves, but we (and you) have laws that prevent that expression from causing harm to others.

If we dont have such laws, if people could say whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted, would that suit you?

Suits me.

Quill is an asshole.

See how that works.

That's almost a compliment compared to what you normally say to each other. Razz

by Syl Sun Mar 07, 2021 8:01 pm

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:As for the song...if enough people want to listen to his songs and he wants to write and publish them...so what?.

I imagine most kids wont even take in the meaning even if they sing along to them....they don't make much sense to me, but then he is still trying to appeal to the youngsters, not old farts like me.....even though, as he rightly says in his latest song, he is heading that way himself now.

Well, it's hateful and should be banned.

It's just plain old gobbldygook to me, but then I'm not a fan. Wink

by Original Quill Sun Mar 07, 2021 10:10 pm

Syl wrote:But wars have to start somewhere...and words provoke actions, actions provoke wars.

The antidote to words, is counter-words...or arguments to the contrary, which can prove to be equally persuasive, and provocative. Words might 'whip-up' a crowd; but they also 'calm-down' the same crowd.

Argument and counter-argument are the ways to deliberate on a course of action. Let the listeners, who after all are in the majority, be the judge of any final action.

Of course, there are those who might manipulate facts by reframing an issue, or eliminating crucial details, but the only way to combat such distortions is by free speech.

by Maddog Sun Mar 07, 2021 11:34 pm

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Suits me.

Quill is an asshole.

See how that works.

That's almost a compliment compared to what you normally say to each other.

Well, I only use accurate words to describe Quill. Cool

by Maddog Sun Mar 07, 2021 11:34 pm

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Suits me.

Quill is an asshole.

See how that works.

That's almost a compliment compared to what you normally say to each other.

Well, I only use accurate words to describe Quill. Cool

by Syl Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:31 am

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:But wars have to start somewhere...and words provoke actions, actions provoke wars.

The antidote to words, is counter-words...or arguments to the contrary, which can prove to be equally persuasive, and provocative. Words might 'whip-up' a crowd; but they also 'calm-down' the same crowd.

Argument and counter-argument are the ways to deliberate on a course of action. Let the listeners, who after all are in the majority, be the judge of any final action.

Of course, there are those who might manipulate facts by reframing an issue, or eliminating crucial details, but the only way to combat such distortions is by free speech.

Can you imagine what kind of society we would live in if every fool was allowed to talk to others in any way they chose without redress?

It's taken a long time for hate language to be taken seriously, are you in favour of blacks, gays, women, people with disabilaties, anyone who doesn't fit in with some oiks idea of normality, to be the target of abuse, and that be accepted as 'free speech'?

by Maddog Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:41 am

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The antidote to words, is counter-words...or arguments to the contrary, which can prove to be equally persuasive, and provocative. Words might 'whip-up' a crowd; but they also 'calm-down' the same crowd.

Argument and counter-argument are the ways to deliberate on a course of action. Let the listeners, who after all are in the majority, be the judge of any final action.

Of course, there are those who might manipulate facts by reframing an issue, or eliminating crucial details, but the only way to combat such distortions is by free speech.

Can you imagine what kind of society we would live in if every fool was allowed to talk to others in any way they chose without redress?

It's taken a long time for hate language to be taken seriously, are you in favour of blacks, gays, women, people with disabilaties, anyone who doesn't fit in with some oiks idea of normality, to be the target of abuse, and that be accepted as 'free speech'?

You just described the US.

We don't have hate speech laws.

by Syl Mon Mar 08, 2021 1:14 am

I didn't know that Maddog, I always presume you are as civilised as we are. Wink

People found guilty of hate speech here can be fined, imprisoned, or both.

by Original Quill Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:12 am

I don't think muzzling free expression is very civilized. European nations were closer to Hitler, and they don't have an express prohibition like the First Amendment, so they have dabbled in prohibiting certain types of speech.

In the US there are hate laws, but usually as penalty enhancements. The only federal statute that directly addresses race hate speech, is the Klan Act of 1871, 42 USC 1981, et. seq. And then, it's usually coupled with more specific violations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/02/18/ku-klux-klan-act-capitol-attack/

by Guest Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:16 am

Original Quill wrote: European nations were closer to Hitler,/

how so

by Syl Mon Mar 08, 2021 12:44 pm

Original Quill wrote:I don't think muzzling free expression is very civilized. European nations were closer to Hitler, and they don't have an express prohibition like the First Amendment, so they have dabbled in prohibiting certain types of speech.

In the US there are hate laws, but usually as penalty enhancements. The only federal statute that directly addresses race hate speech, is the Klan Act of 1871, 42 USC 1981, et. seq. And then, it's usually coupled with more specific violations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/02/18/ku-klux-klan-act-capitol-attack/

Muzzling free expression and legally addressing hate speech is two different things.

In the UK we do have freedom of expression as long as we are not spouting hatred against anyone or any particular group.
I find that very civilised, much more so than individuals dragging others into court and claiming financial reward because someone said something they found offensive.

Or even worse...shooting them.

by Tommy Monk Mon Mar 08, 2021 1:18 pm

Korben wrote:
Original Quill wrote: European nations were closer to Hitler,/
how so

Germany had allies such as Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania...

by Maddog Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:08 pm

Syl wrote:I didn't know that Maddog, I always presume you are as civilised as we are.

People found guilty of hate speech here can be fined, imprisoned, or both.

You don't remember the Westboro clowns running around spewing hate?

I don't find governments oppressing citizens over mean words to be very civilized.

by Maddog Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:10 pm

Original Quill wrote:I don't think muzzling free expression is very civilized. European nations were closer to Hitler, and they don't have an express prohibition like the First Amendment, so they have dabbled in prohibiting certain types of speech.

In the US there are hate laws, but usually as penalty enhancements. The only federal statute that directly addresses race hate speech, is the Klan Act of 1871, 42 USC 1981, et. seq. And then, it's usually coupled with more specific violations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/02/18/ku-klux-klan-act-capitol-attack/

No need to violate Godwins law to support free speech.

by Original Quill Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:19 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The antidote to words, is counter-words...or arguments to the contrary, which can prove to be equally persuasive, and provocative. Words might 'whip-up' a crowd; but they also 'calm-down' the same crowd.

Argument and counter-argument are the ways to deliberate on a course of action. Let the listeners, who after all are in the majority, be the judge of any final action.

Of course, there are those who might manipulate facts by reframing an issue, or eliminating crucial details, but the only way to combat such distortions is by free speech.

Can you imagine what kind of society we would live in if every fool was allowed to talk to others in any way they chose without redress?

Ok, freeze that picture, and substitute "fool" for "opposition", and you have a perfect picture of Putin putting away Alexei Anatolievich Navalny. Only free speech stands between democracy and tyranny.

Syl wrote:It's taken a long time for hate language to be taken seriously, are you in favour of blacks, gays, women, people with disabilaties, anyone who doesn't fit in with some oiks idea of normality, to be the target of abuse, and that be accepted as 'free speech'?

I'm in favor of dialogue, and no arbitrary action by factions (including people who presume to supervise conduct and morals). I have faith in the common decency of people in general, and will allow them to be the final judge of right and wrong.

by Syl Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:09 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:
Can you imagine what kind of society we would live in if every fool was allowed to talk to others in any way they chose without redress?

Ok, freeze that picture, and substitute "fool" for "opposition", and you have a perfect picture of Putin putting away Alexei Anatolievich Navalny. Only free speech stands between democracy and tyranny.

Syl wrote:It's taken a long time for hate language to be taken seriously, are you in favour of blacks, gays, women, people with disabilaties, anyone who doesn't fit in with some oiks idea of normality, to be the target of abuse, and that be accepted as 'free speech'?

I'm in favor of dialogue, and no arbitrary action by factions (including people who presume to supervise conduct and morals). I have faith in the common decency of people in general, and will allow them to be the final judge of right and wrong.

If everyone had common decency and a moral compass I agree there would be no need for any law to step in re hate speech, but then if everyone had the above we would hardly need any laws for anything.

by Maddog Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:52 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Ok, freeze that picture, and substitute "fool" for "opposition", and you have a perfect picture of Putin putting away Alexei Anatolievich Navalny. Only free speech stands between democracy and tyranny.

I'm in favor of dialogue, and no arbitrary action by factions (including people who presume to supervise conduct and morals). I have faith in the common decency of people in general, and will allow them to be the final judge of right and wrong.

If everyone had common decency and a moral compass I agree there would be no need for any law to step in re hate speech, but then if everyone had the above we would hardly need any laws for anything.

How much punishment should the royal family get for being hateful to that silly American woman?

by Syl Mon Mar 08, 2021 7:12 pm

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:

If everyone had common decency and a moral compass I agree there would be no need for any law to step in re hate speech, but then if everyone had the above we would hardly need any laws for anything.

How much punishment should the royal family get for being hateful to that silly American woman?

When proof is shown as to who said what to her...we can debate.

by Maddog Mon Mar 08, 2021 7:28 pm

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:

How much punishment should the royal family get for being hateful to that silly American woman?

When proof is shown as to who said what to her...we can debate.

So if Harry backs up her claim?

by Syl Mon Mar 08, 2021 7:39 pm

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:

When proof is shown as to who said what to her...we can debate.

So if Harry backs up her claim?

Her claim is 'a member of the royal household', have you any idea how many members are in that family?....I think she will have to be a tad more specific. Wink

by Guest Mon Mar 08, 2021 8:50 pm

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:

So if Harry backs up her claim?

Her claim is 'a member of the royal household', have you any idea how many members are in that family?....I think she will have to be a tad more specific.

pretty sure the" royal household" includes every one who lives and works for the Royal family as well, that's hundreds from cleaners to the queen

by Maddog Mon Mar 08, 2021 8:56 pm

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:

So if Harry backs up her claim?

Her claim is 'a member of the royal household', have you any idea how many members are in that family?....I think she will have to be a tad more specific.

I'm not arguing it's likely bull shit.

I'm just pointing out how this gets started.

Is calling someone who is fat, a "fat ass" hate speech?

What about calling someone a retard?

Redneck?

Cracker?

Limey?

Septic?

Spic?

White Trash?

by Guest Mon Mar 08, 2021 9:04 pm

And to be frank Who the fuck cares. i am a royalist and i don't care a jot ,They are just like any other family when you boil it down and ignore the fact that they are "royalty". And every family has problems, and family members that cant stand each other or say or do inappropriate things hell i don't like my wife's dad he is banned from the house i or the wife haven't seen him since the day i got married 35 years ago and he lives 10 miles away ,i cant stand one of my wife's sisters, she's just disgusting . i cant stand one of my younger brothers he is a sanctimonious selfish prick ,,,,but that's families for you

by Andy Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:29 pm

Haven't spoken to my brother for 5 years, he lives 5 miles away and nicked £50k off our mother before she died. And he embezzled my 50% share of the inherited house, worth a mere £300,000. So I have some sympathy for Harry being pissed off with his uncaring brother.

by Sponsored content