Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Katie Hopkins Back On Twitter?
96 Answers
It's advised that Elon Musk may remind Katie Hopkins' lifetime ban from Twitter.
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
AH, //stirring up hatred and malice //
That gives no indication of what was said, why it was said, or in whose opinion it stirred up hatred and malice. Justified criticism is often said to stir up hatred and malice - by those who object to criticism. That's why those who haven't criticised her have on this very thread been accused of liking 'extreme right wing, racist trolls' - which in itself could be considered likely to stir up hatred and malice.
That gives no indication of what was said, why it was said, or in whose opinion it stirred up hatred and malice. Justified criticism is often said to stir up hatred and malice - by those who object to criticism. That's why those who haven't criticised her have on this very thread been accused of liking 'extreme right wing, racist trolls' - which in itself could be considered likely to stir up hatred and malice.
naomi - // AH, //stirring up hatred and malice //
Justified criticism is often said to stir up hatred and malice - by those who object to criticism. //
It is - but in Ms Hopkins' case, and others of her ilk, it is not 'criticism', it is the scattergun approach of the ill-informed and unreasonable who are incapable of articulating their own nasty prejudices, and so line up behind those who can, even if they are doing it for the money and public profile.
// That's why those who haven't criticised her have on this very thread been accused of liking 'extreme right wing, racist trolls' - which in itself could be considered likely to stir up hatred and malice. //
It could indeed - but surely the way to prevent this unpleasant circumstance is not to try and justify such horrible nonsense as 'free speech'.
But simply to accept that, as I said, holding and abhorrent view does not automatically grant rights of expression under the banner of 'free speech' - that is why we have slander and libel laws, as Ms Hopkins found out, to her cost.
Justified criticism is often said to stir up hatred and malice - by those who object to criticism. //
It is - but in Ms Hopkins' case, and others of her ilk, it is not 'criticism', it is the scattergun approach of the ill-informed and unreasonable who are incapable of articulating their own nasty prejudices, and so line up behind those who can, even if they are doing it for the money and public profile.
// That's why those who haven't criticised her have on this very thread been accused of liking 'extreme right wing, racist trolls' - which in itself could be considered likely to stir up hatred and malice. //
It could indeed - but surely the way to prevent this unpleasant circumstance is not to try and justify such horrible nonsense as 'free speech'.
But simply to accept that, as I said, holding and abhorrent view does not automatically grant rights of expression under the banner of 'free speech' - that is why we have slander and libel laws, as Ms Hopkins found out, to her cost.
AH, //it is the scattergun approach of the ill-informed and unreasonable who are incapable of articulating their own nasty prejudices//
You're missing the point. In your opinion they are 'nasty prejudices' because you don't like what she says. You don't appear to consider that her words may have some foundation in truth - as unsavoury as that truth may be to you.
You're missing the point. In your opinion they are 'nasty prejudices' because you don't like what she says. You don't appear to consider that her words may have some foundation in truth - as unsavoury as that truth may be to you.
naomi - // AH, //it is the scattergun approach of the ill-informed and unreasonable who are incapable of articulating their own nasty prejudices//
You're missing the point. In your opinion they are 'nasty prejudices' because you don't like what she says. You don't appear to consider that her words may have some foundation in truth - as unsavoury as that truth may be to you. //
Any words 'may have some foundation in truth' - but that is not and never should be a defence, or more accurately, a cloak, to hide deeply disturbing opinions, and stoking up those opinions in sections of society who may choose not to simply accept them as potentially true, but to be an invitation to direct action.
You can argue 'some foundation of truth' in Hitler's Final Solution if you wish to bend it far enough - but that does not mean that you should be offered a chance to espouse that view in a national newspaper for payment.
You're missing the point. In your opinion they are 'nasty prejudices' because you don't like what she says. You don't appear to consider that her words may have some foundation in truth - as unsavoury as that truth may be to you. //
Any words 'may have some foundation in truth' - but that is not and never should be a defence, or more accurately, a cloak, to hide deeply disturbing opinions, and stoking up those opinions in sections of society who may choose not to simply accept them as potentially true, but to be an invitation to direct action.
You can argue 'some foundation of truth' in Hitler's Final Solution if you wish to bend it far enough - but that does not mean that you should be offered a chance to espouse that view in a national newspaper for payment.
AH, //Any words 'may have some foundation in truth' - but that is not and never should be a defence, or more accurately, a cloak, to hide deeply disturbing opinions, and stoking up those opinions in sections of society who may choose not to simply accept them as potentially true, but to be an invitation to direct action.//
Nonsense. If words have some foundation in truth that should be accepted. The claim that someone who's said something you don't like holds 'deeply disturbing opinions' is in your head.
//You can argue 'some foundation of truth' in Hitler's Final Solution//
I could argue that Hitler's solution existed - that would be true - but personally, I couldn't argue its validity - not that it's a valid analogy but simply words designed to stir up negativity - which is precisely what you're accusing Katie Hopkins of doing.
Nonsense. If words have some foundation in truth that should be accepted. The claim that someone who's said something you don't like holds 'deeply disturbing opinions' is in your head.
//You can argue 'some foundation of truth' in Hitler's Final Solution//
I could argue that Hitler's solution existed - that would be true - but personally, I couldn't argue its validity - not that it's a valid analogy but simply words designed to stir up negativity - which is precisely what you're accusing Katie Hopkins of doing.
naomi - // Nonsense. If words have some foundation in truth that should be accepted. The claim that someone who's said something you don't like holds 'deeply disturbing opinions' is in your head. //
And the notion that I have said that someone who's said something I don;t like holds 'deeply disturbing opinions' is in yours.
//I could argue that Hitler's solution existed - that would be true - but personally, I couldn't argue its validity - not that it's a valid analogy but simply words designed to stir up negativity - which is precisely what you're accusing Katie Hopkins of doing. //
And that addresses my point entirely.
I could not argue the validity of the Final solution - and it is a valid analogy, and I could hardly be intending to 'stir up negativity' when it is precisely that action that I am arguing against!
And talking of something that exists, but I could not argue its validity - Ms Hopkins opinion that use of gunboats is the solution to the migrant influx is not something I could argue either - but she can, and does, and that is what is wrong with her career, she uses deliberately inflammatory verbiage to stir up negativity - please don't attempt to bracket me with her, it's offensive,
And the notion that I have said that someone who's said something I don;t like holds 'deeply disturbing opinions' is in yours.
//I could argue that Hitler's solution existed - that would be true - but personally, I couldn't argue its validity - not that it's a valid analogy but simply words designed to stir up negativity - which is precisely what you're accusing Katie Hopkins of doing. //
And that addresses my point entirely.
I could not argue the validity of the Final solution - and it is a valid analogy, and I could hardly be intending to 'stir up negativity' when it is precisely that action that I am arguing against!
And talking of something that exists, but I could not argue its validity - Ms Hopkins opinion that use of gunboats is the solution to the migrant influx is not something I could argue either - but she can, and does, and that is what is wrong with her career, she uses deliberately inflammatory verbiage to stir up negativity - please don't attempt to bracket me with her, it's offensive,
dave - // I've always found her very entertaining. She raises the hackles of the usual lefties which is an added bonus and which is why they wanted her banned from the airwaves. Not the correct opinions I'm afraid. //
People are entertained by different things, some of which society sanctions, some it does not.
I appreciate that Ms Hopkins and her fans can justify her nasty nonsense by saying she baits snowflakes.
But as I have pointed out, I believe that masks a more sinister aspect of our society, which is not to be encouraged in my view - the hostility based on fear and ignorance that festers division and anger is never something we should facilitate and encourage, it helps no-one, it only does harm.
Whether Ms Hopkins opinions are 'correct' or not, is not an issue, anyone can hold an opinion.
It is the platform used to convey that opinion, and the harmful effect it can have, that is my cause for concern.
People are entertained by different things, some of which society sanctions, some it does not.
I appreciate that Ms Hopkins and her fans can justify her nasty nonsense by saying she baits snowflakes.
But as I have pointed out, I believe that masks a more sinister aspect of our society, which is not to be encouraged in my view - the hostility based on fear and ignorance that festers division and anger is never something we should facilitate and encourage, it helps no-one, it only does harm.
Whether Ms Hopkins opinions are 'correct' or not, is not an issue, anyone can hold an opinion.
It is the platform used to convey that opinion, and the harmful effect it can have, that is my cause for concern.
AH, //And the notion that I have said that someone who's said something I don;t like holds 'deeply disturbing opinions' is in yours.//
Not at all, They're your words, not mine.
//please don't attempt to bracket me with her, it's offensive,//
In that case you might consider choosing language and examples less likely to create potential confusion.
Not at all, They're your words, not mine.
//please don't attempt to bracket me with her, it's offensive,//
In that case you might consider choosing language and examples less likely to create potential confusion.
davebro - // //Ms Hopkins opinion that use of gunboats is the solution to the migrant influx is not something I could argue either - but she can//
Sensible woman //
Experience tells me that, rather than actually agreeing with Ms Hopkins view, you say you agree in order to provoke a reaction, and in that you are both alike.
The difference, is, she was astute enough to parlay a career out of it, and make herself a nationally known figure of hate.
You however, must content yourself with trying, and failing, to provoke a complete stranger whom you have taken against on the basis of personal dislike.
Never mind.
Sensible woman //
Experience tells me that, rather than actually agreeing with Ms Hopkins view, you say you agree in order to provoke a reaction, and in that you are both alike.
The difference, is, she was astute enough to parlay a career out of it, and make herself a nationally known figure of hate.
You however, must content yourself with trying, and failing, to provoke a complete stranger whom you have taken against on the basis of personal dislike.
Never mind.
naomi - // //please don't attempt to bracket me with her, it's offensive,//
In that case you might consider choosing language and examples less likely to create potential confusion. //
The confusion is clearly your own - if you cannot understand the simple analogies I have offered, that is your problem.
In that case you might consider choosing language and examples less likely to create potential confusion. //
The confusion is clearly your own - if you cannot understand the simple analogies I have offered, that is your problem.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Home & Garden66 mins ago
ChatterBank81 mins ago
Are We Heading Towards Another...
Politics182 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.