Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Editors _ Deryck Chan loses a fan
Posted by: carbuncle
Who doesn't enjoy a Twitter fight? User:Deryck Chan is an admin on WP.
deryckchan Deryck Chan
Derby men guilty over gay hate leaflets http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-16656679 //I don't agree with what they say, but we should defend their right to say it.
20 Jan
Faenwp Fae
@deryckchan I see no difference between saying "all jews should burn" from "all gays should burn". Incitement to hatred is not a "right".
14 hours ago
deryckchan Deryck Chan
@Faenwp "Propose death penalty for homosexuals" is (misguided) advocacy; "We should go and burn homosexuals" is inciting hatred.
14 hours ago
Faenwp Fae
@deryckchan Proclaiming "Turn Or Burn" is incitement to hatred and demonstrated in court. Are you sure you want to support such filth?
14 hours ago
deryckchan Deryck Chan
@Faenwp Again I don't support what they say; I'm merely astonished by how far over the top our society's secularist intolerance has gone.
14 hours ago
Faenwp Fae
@deryckchan Incitement to hatred is not "secularist intolerance". You shouting offensive crap in public. You have certainly lost my respect.
14 hours ago
deryckchan Deryck Chan
@Faenwp Your response exhibits precisely that intolerance - using "equality" as an excuse to silence those with different moral views.
14 hours ago
@Faenwp Fae
@deryckchan I thought I just block you. Please fuck off with your homophobic supporting shit.
13 hours ago via web
@deryckchan Perhaps you should write to #Stonewall explaining everyone has the "right" to say that gay people should be burnt to death.
14 hours ago via web
@deryckchan To avoid bias, why not write to @JewishChron and defend the "right" to publish leaflets supporting the death penalty for Jews?
14 hours ago via web
@deryckchan You support the "right" to publish statements that gay people should be burnt or stoned to death. How is that not disgusting?
14 hours ago
deryckchan Deryck Chan
@Faenwp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6
14 hours ago
@Faenwp Fae
@deryckchan Your offensive homophobic and pro-incitement to hatred is too much. Quoting "First they came…" at me is stupid. Fuck off.
14 hours ago via web
deryckchan Deryck Chan
@Faenwp Since you've now resorted to swearing and personal attacks, I agree I should remove myself from this conversation.
14 hours ago
Faenwp Fae
@deryckchan Steer clear of me in future. Now I see you support incitement against queers, it is easy to see your comments in context.
13 hours ago
Posted by: Eppur si muove
If "turn or burn" refers to this life and not the next, then it's hard to see it as a free speech issue rather than one of delivering threats through the letterboxes of anyone whose sex life may not meet the expected standards of religious bigots. However, it's not immediately obvious that Chan is homophobic as opposed to someone who takes Voltaire's precept to extremes.
In the good old days before Fae replaced Ash, we might also have seen a clash over the following AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stud_(LGBT_usage). Of course, if this had concerned a pornagraphic photo on Commons, Fae would still have explained its educational and encyclopedic relevance.
Posted by: lilburne
If "turn or burn" refers to this life and not the next, then it's hard to see it as a free speech issue rather than one of delivering threats through the letterboxes of anyone whose sex life may not meet the expected standards of religious bigots.
Would one take the same position if the phrase used was "turn or Darth Vader will whack you with his light sabre"? Don't threats have to be credible for the law to be invoked, and also one cannot be guilty of something that it impossible to do?
Posted by: Doc glasgow
I think the point of free speech, is you need to start from the premise that anyone is entitled to say anything, as long as it isn't advocating or implying actual violence. Once you depart from that, it is the slippery slope to censorship.
I will defend your right to believe I'm going to hell, as long as you will defend my right to go there.
Posted by: lilburne
I will defend your right to believe I'm going to hell, as long as you will defend my right to go there.
I don't think its a quid pro quo so of thing.
Posted by: Doc glasgow
No, not a quid pro quo between individuals - but it is a social contract.
I will defend the right of racist scumbags to spout their racist crap, because in doing so I am protecting my own right to speak my beliefs, without the fear that I will be silenced by the others who find them objectionable.
In the UK, where there is no fist amendment, there is a great danger that equalities legislation could result in a new liberal censorship. I think the intelligent, true liberals now realise this - and realise that freedom is tested by our willingness to defend those whose views repel us.
Which is where the "first the came for..." mantra comes in. Only to update it, you'd need:
First they came for the burka-wearers...
Then they came for the BNP...
Then they came for the Conservative Fundamentalists ...
...
France banned the burka, and as much as the idea of women having to wear them repels me, if they try to ban them here, I will be wearing one!
Posted by: DanMurphy
This is really great stuff. Mr. Van Haeften wrote and defended articles like "list of gay bathouse regulars" (information must be free! rumble rumble) with no regard to individual privacy, but supports repressing speech that he finds unpleasant. This captures the hypocrisy within the Wikipedia/Wikimedia core. "Their values" and interpretations should be expressed without fetters or fear of challenge. It's other people that must be shut up.
Posted by: EricBarbour
This is really great stuff. Mr. Van Haeften wrote and defended articles like "list of gay bathouse regulars" (information must be free! rumble rumble) with no regard to individual privacy, but supports repressing speech that he finds unpleasant. This captures the hypocrisy within the Wikipedia/Wikimedia core.
And we've got more examples of this. It's a daily occurrence, but I have yet to see anyone outside
the tiny little Wiki-world commenting on it in depth. Hypocrisy is a profound part of the "glorious
Wikipedia experience". Exactly reflecting Jimbo's inherent hypocrisy.
Posted by: Eppur si muove
If "turn or burn" refers to this life and not the next, then it's hard to see it as a free speech issue rather than one of delivering threats through the letterboxes of anyone whose sex life may not meet the expected standards of religious bigots.
Would one take the same position if the phrase used was "turn or Darth Vader will whack you with his light sabre"? Don't threats have to be credible for the law to be invoked, and also one cannot be guilty of something that it impossible to do?
That's why I raise the issue of whether the burning is meant to happen in this life or the next. If it's the next then it's people talking about their sadistic fantasies and just showing that they are unpleasant people. If there isn't an explicit mention of the burning being in hell, then you see how the guy in the article might be rationally scared of arson attacks through the letter box and at that point the religious nutters deserve no sympathy.
Posted by: melloden
Fae is a blithering idiot looking for an excuse to play the homophobia card again so he can escape this latest scandal and create a new "cleanstart" account.