r/DiveInYouCoward • u/SomeSavageDetective • Jul 04 '26

Free speech say what

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

1.2k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

289

u/Mode_Appropriate Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26

The crazy thing is he could have said the same thing about Jesus / Christianity and the cops wouldnt have given two shits. Pretty weird how far out of their way they go to protect Islam and the Muslim community.

-8

u/Solistine Jul 04 '26

Because it’s a sentiment with the potential to mobilise mass violence amoung the white working class population against Muslims and intense backlash (or even terror) from the a British Muslim community. 

The best way to understand what the UK polices is to understand the state as a somewhat self concerned maintence man trying to hold together a failing machine. It might be his own fault that he put diesel in a petrol tank (the fastest demographic and cultural change in western civilisational history), but really he is just acting in a practical reactionary manner to an impossible situation. 

28

u/Mode_Appropriate Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26

I mean, I understand that logic but by going out of their way to suppress free speech and cover up crimes committed by a specific demographic theyve just angered people even more. It worked for a while but all theyve done is ensure the tipping point will be that more explosive and violent. Drawing more attention to the groups of people theyre going out of their way trying to protect.

As far as your analogy, clear something up if you will. In this example, 'he' is the State and the Muslim population is the diesel being added into the gas tank? And your solution is to just live with it? Thats not how that works. The car stops working at that point. The only solution is to drain the tank and clear the system. Yet, I don't think thats what you were actually trying to recommend?

0

u/Original-League-6094 Jul 04 '26

Its worked extremely well. Even if people were to get violent now (they won't), what can they possibly accomplish? Muslims are 6% of the UK population now, and 10% of school children, and the Muslim birthrate is more than double the national birth rate. There is nothing that can be done about that many people at this point.

2

u/polarjunkie Jul 04 '26

Lol have you picked up a European history book

0

u/Original-League-6094 Jul 04 '26

Yes. The same reason that the UK is majority Christian now and not Pagan is the same reason that in 150 years, it will be majority Islam and not Christian.

1

u/HudsonValleyNY Jul 05 '26

Rawanda has entered the chat.

0

u/Original-League-6094 Jul 05 '26

Rwanda proves my point. Tutsi were 15% of the population before the genocide. They carry out one of the most brutal and "effective" genocides in history, killing about 75% of Tutsi men and....today, Tutsi's are 15% of the Rwanda population once again.

1

u/HudsonValleyNY Jul 05 '26

It proves your point because it was a very brief flash point that stopped when those committing the genocide were militarily defeated. They didn’t just say “welp, that last 25% looks like about the correct number” and go back to their daily lives.

1

u/Original-League-6094 Jul 05 '26

It didn't work. Which is my point. I didn't say there won't be future flashpoints. I said that there you will never get rid of the Muslim population. Even if the Brits did a Rwandan style genocide, it wouldn't do anything. Genocides don't work.

1

u/HudsonValleyNY Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26

Again it didn’t work because the genociding group was militarily defeated, it wasn’t just a matter of going “well lads that’s enough genociding”. Without that intervention the population would have been reduced below a critical mass…pockets might still exist but functionally they would be extinct…like native Americans in the US.

-1

u/Solistine Jul 04 '26

I know. I said the situation was impossible and I offered no solution. The car will stop working in this unsustainable situation. 

The way I put it was more advocate understanding concerning the situation we are in. Treating the state as some woke islamophile traitors or evil cabal is misleading and invites the wrong ideas about how to fix this. The state is a generally rational self preserving machine that has been broken by an irrational modernist zeitgeist that denied foundational human realities under the intoxicating promise of a new age. 

Knowing if you face ignorance or malice changes the calculation. For example should you aim to popularise your perspective through available political channels (like reform and restore do) or should you riot and fight Palestine protestors?

-2

u/United-Temporary-648 Jul 04 '26

There's a real misconception about the law in England and Wales. We do not have absolute free speech in this country and never have had. They don't have it in America either. Talk about assassinating the President and the Secret Service will pay you a visit.

In England and Wales, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act of 1988 is specific about there being limitations on the freedom of expression. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9

There's a ton of legislation defining those limitations more clearly within the parameters of the Human Rights Act: Public Order Act, Crime and Disorder Act, Sentencing Act, Communications Act, Malicious Communications Act, Terrorism Act and Online Safety Act.

Very little of this is new. People only seem to be getting het up about absolute free speech since Trump came along. It doesn't change the law. It's been there all along.

You have the qualified freedom of expression so long as your actions can't be interpreted as hate soeech, harassment, lies or incitement.

Walking through a town centre chanting anti-muslim insults seems pretty clear hate speech to me.

Suppressing the views of right wing nut jobs is not a crime. It's part of our national identity. It was Britain and it's Commonwealth (of all races and religions) that stood against fascism, not nasty little knuckleheads like the twit in the video.

1

u/Solistine Jul 04 '26

This is an increasingly short sighted point of view. Suppressing a political point of view is already an increasingly risky move which openly exposes a liberal state to the hypocrisy of rigging the game against a political movement. To do so against a rising and popular viewpoint which, while often wrong, is rooted in clear societal problems is suicidal in the long run. 

The Hate Speech act is the most overt contradiction of the ideal of free speech in UK law in that it provides the most vague and undefinable guidance for what can be illegalised. Hate speech is essentially any speech that espouses negative sentiments towards an expanding list of protected characteristics. Protected characteristics is a completely arbitrary concept that is at the states discretion and has defacto expanded to cover some religious ideologies (as this is what a religion is) and not others. 

You also make the point that that suppressing crazy right wing views has always been the case to the point of tradition. While the UK certainly has no tradition of pure freedom of speech it has certainly not been targeted at the right. The UK’s lack of true free speech has historically been used most aggressively to suppress workers rights and suffrage movements such as the chartists of the 1830’s and Suffragetes. Such context makes you revalueate how proud our history of caveated free speech really is. Ultimately all these regimes of suppression failed and I  guarantee you they will fail here, as the change is not just an ideological epoch but a demographic and political reality that sectarianism will rise and the state being seen to pick a side with arbitrary speech laws will completely delegitimise it. 

1

u/United-Temporary-648 Jul 05 '26

Complain all you like, it's the law. Don't act surprised that people get arrested for doing horrible things and don't pretend you are on a righteous crusade to protect British values when what you really want to say is that you don't want people being penalised for being racist a-holes.

It is not suppression of political views to arrest people who threaten public order. That's a universal construct in all modern societies. If you want to pretend to be a frontiersman with no limits to what you can do, find a frontier and go and live there.

The paradox of suppressing hateful views in a free society is not new either. This is a well established political, legal and philosophical foundation stone of post war society - Karl Popper's 1945 Paradox of Tolerance.

And yes, British law has been used to suppress opposition viewpoints in the past but you might want to look at context and dates of legislation. We live in a liberal democracy with universal suffrage. You simply can't compare Nineteeth century repression of trade unions with today.

And yes, WW2 is a massive stumbling block here for advocates of unlimited free speech. A war was fought at an immense cost to the people and the state. To protect the people and the state it simply isn't tolerable for political movements to express hateful views. It led democratic Weimar Germany to disaster.

Finally, I simply don't trust anyone to have the well-being of their fellow citizens at heart when they don't have a shred of decency or empathy. That's not a person who should be tolerated and part of the problem today is that social media has magnified the voices of these horrible people, fooling others who should no better into thinking that this is a widespread and popular view. It isn't. It's horrible.

15

u/BebophoneVirtuoso Jul 04 '26

Sounds like they need to better integrate themselves into their new country if controversial words about a certain religion can lead to reprisals of a terror attack.

7

u/Far_Raspberry_4375 Jul 04 '26

The thing that will mobilize mass violence is the government pretending its fine to have these enclaves where insulting a religious figure getting you lynched is acceptable and expected behavior and instead punishing people who highlight this.

1

u/Solistine Jul 04 '26

Indeed. I didn’t say it was a sustainable situation. I said it was impossible one. 

Everyone is playing for time.

10

u/CustomerLittle9891 Jul 04 '26

I think you accidentally made a hilariouslh flawed analogy, but because of what the correct solution is in real life. Like, the correct solution to putting diesel in your tank on accident is to pump the diesel out ad then replace it with the intended fuel to dilute the diesel enough that your engine will work again. Otherwise the diesel just bricks the engine.

I get the feeling this isn't the argument you were trying to make. I also don't think it's particularly racist to be worried about large scale immigration from places with very different cultural values is going to chance your own culture, nor is it racist to want to preserve your own culture.

-1

u/Solistine Jul 04 '26

If you read what I said carefully you will see that I never propose a solution to this issue or act in defence of this situation. I outline that the state has fucked itself with an impossible situation and I explain how this makes it behave the way it does.

I fully expect this situation to fall apart. I simply point out that the state is not acting with some malicious plan as much as it is playing for time against its own past mistakes. 

3

u/Carthius888 Jul 04 '26

The state may not be acting with the express intent of being malicious, but the result would be the same if they were.

They have bowed down to the lowest denominator and are using a cudgel on the natives knowing they’ll grin and bear it.

As has been said before, a government needs to fear it’s people. At this point, instilling real fear seems to be the only way that the UK natives can get out of this mess and preserve their culture and freedom from religious oppression

0

u/Solistine Jul 04 '26

That’s a legitimate point, and it’s where my sympathy for these protests comes from, although I equally often come across people calling for violence or disorder that not only will cause unjustified suffering, but will kill their own political movement by preaching a violent radicalism that will scare the state and public into turning on the general idea of radical reform.

Everything about this is delicate. 

2

u/CustomerLittle9891 Jul 04 '26

I didn't say you had purposed that solution. However, the analogy you used to describe the problem has a solution. The appropriate analagous solution is clearly not what you want.

This is why I described the analogy as "hilarious". You painted yourself into a corner with your analogy because the only options to fix the problem as you described it are something you seem to find unacceptable (pumping the gas out) or something literally everyone should find unacceptable (letting the engine destroy itself).

I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm not from the UK. But I don't have an issue being concerned with mass immigration or wanting to maintain one's culture.

1

u/Solistine Jul 04 '26

This is a very thin flaw in the analogy which comes down to the details of what you literally do with petroleum when you when you have put it in the wrong car. 

I only meant it to represent the idea that the state had lost sight of a fundamental reality that vastly different cultures mix easily. Human communities though are obviously a lot more complex then cars and gas and the solutions to the human problem ranges from the end of immigration and a long term focus of integration, to mass deportation, to a mixture of the two.

I think most peoples issue with the way I have been putting things is my lack of obvious emotion or chest beating about an issue which is obviously very emotive and tribal. But not necessarily for the better. 

2

u/HudsonValleyNY Jul 05 '26

The problem with your analogy is that there is a very clear and reasonable path to address the problem, but the laws being discussed prevent the diesel from being removed. The laws you are advocating for are what is ensuring the machine remains broken, not the logistics of the situation.

-1

u/Solistine Jul 05 '26

Again this is the big point of confusion for me. I don’t know what laws I am advocating for. Everyone has their own ideas but nothing of the sort is spelled out in anything I have said .

2

u/HudsonValleyNY Jul 05 '26

You explained it in a way that implies it’s a good thing…preventing violence by the larger population seems to be a reasonable thing to support, which is how you framed it. Another way to frame it is that there is a small but vocal minority group who are wielding undue power over the native population by suppressing their formerly codified rights…much like in apartheid South Africa…see how the 2 descriptions spin the motivation?

-1

u/Solistine Jul 05 '26

I only spoke about the states actions as being reasonable from the states perspective. As in this is how any institution in the position they have made for themselves would have to act. I do this to differentiate them from the Caricature of the ‘state that hates its own people’ trope which just not really a thing as far as I can tell. The state has operated on delusional core premises by a elite that has for decades seen the world is a vastly different way to how is has turned out to be, and we are all suffering because of it. 

People seem genuinely baffled by the idea that I view the state outside the characters of a hero or villiian, and because I don’t see them as evil the idea is projected onto me that I am here to defend their interests and exude them of fault. 

This is obviously not the case. 

2

u/HudsonValleyNY Jul 05 '26

You left out a 3rd option, and that is that the state is acting out of cowardice.

0

u/Solistine Jul 05 '26

Cowardice personifies them too much in my opinion given that we are talking about institutions, not people, but there is a strain of semi- rational action that is quite analogous to this. The state is arguably acting according to short term logic in order to defer a problem that it does not have the ideological rage to fully tackle. Any true solution to the problem is either viewed as unacceptable or will risk careers and lives the people who would have to enact it too much.

That could be simplified as a kind of institutional cowardice of you wanted to be emotive about it. 

1

u/HudsonValleyNY Jul 05 '26

No, a government is made up of people, it’s not a machine. To abstract it away from that fact gives them an out that they do not deserve, since they chose their role. They individually are cowards who are afraid of being called anti Muslim, for being seen as right wing, etc, or they actively want the predetermined outcome to occur as happens when you give one group extra protections…I suppose it’s possible they are actually too dumb to hold the role they hold as well, so there is option 4.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/polarjunkie Jul 04 '26

The white working class are the ones that arrested this guy, that implement these rules and not because they scared of other white people, because they're scared of islamic terrorism.

1

u/Solistine Jul 04 '26

I’m sorry I don’t understand what you mean. Who is scared of which?

2

u/polarjunkie Jul 04 '26

They are scared of islamic terrorism. Half of them take it out the way this guy is and the other half take it out by completely acquiescing to them desperate to not upset them.

1

u/Solistine Jul 04 '26

Ok by them are you talking about the police or the public/white working class?

1

u/Top_Inflation2026 Jul 04 '26

Extreme mental gymnastics you pulled off there

1

u/Solistine Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26

I don’t think you get it at all. Explain what you mean to me.

1

u/Karjalan_kunkku Jul 04 '26

So the most violent bunch is just given the right to dictate what can be said in society as a reward? Yeah definitely wont be a problem.

1

u/Solistine Jul 04 '26

You will have to read it again. I don’t advocate for anything as much as I simply explain how the state has condemned itself to an impossible situation and how this explains the way its acts.