[Sussex] Katie Hopkins in Lewes

[Hastings gull]

She is a troll. If she expressed contrary views in a considered way it would be different. Many people with 'right wing' views I see as worthy of reasoned challenge. I accept their views and issue no judgement on their character. I just don't agree.

But she is an inarticulate sewer pump. She is not well known for right wing social and political discourse- she is well known for being a talentless trolling potty mouth. That is the difference.

Now just think about what you posted . .

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Yes thanks for this. But as we both know, those against alleged hate decide what constitutes hate, as you have done, and therein lies the problem.

Are you suggesting that 1) it’s not hate speech or 2) no one has the right to call out someone whatever their views may be?

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

She is the bully. I stand up to cowardly pieces of vile sh*te like her because I can’t stand bullies. She really is the very definition of scum and quite frankly the world would be a much better place if she wasn’t alive.[/QUOTE]

One might conclude that you are the bully and a vile piece etc . . By all means object to someone' s style and views, which is your right, but when you post something like this, you put yourself on exactly the same pedestal.

You’ve highlighted the first point which is my opinion based on her numerous tweets, posts, TV viewings, all of which have shown her to be a nasty, nasty piece of work. Anyone with a brain cell can see that.

You’ve then highlighted the second part which, I presume, is to make your point even further. The problem with doing so shows either your own ignorance to some of the things she’s said or done (which, in itself, is fair enough but makes your own judgment irrelevant), or you agree with her views and are making the point to support them, which really is a poor reflection of you.

Ultimately we live in what should be a progressive society, but it’s a society that is actually increasingly regressive socially with an increasing number of prejudiced, hate filled actions by an ever increasing number of people putting society under more and more pressure. Many of the statements made by Katie Hopkins not only inflame this hate, but often instigate it. Her views verge, quite frankly, on being scary and without a doubt they illustrate her bullying tactics on some quite serious issues.

There are many people throughout history who the world would’ve been better without. Stating such a thing doesn’t make me a bully or a bad person. It makes me a realistic and a rational enough human being to be able to weigh up the actions and opinions of some people that have shared some pretty scary views or done some pretty scary things. Katie Hopkins is one of those people; she’s toxic and the world would be better without her quite frankly.

 

[Pretty Plnk Fairy]

but she wouldnt have , people had bought tickets .

hope you get a refund
regards
DR

 

[Eeyore]

Now just think about what you posted . .

No. I don't need to. I am merely using her language. You have missed the finer point.

I wouldn't speak of someone with hardened views with such disdain if they articulated them in a considered way. I would respect them.

 

[Hastings gull]

Are you suggesting that 1) it’s not hate speech or 2) no one has the right to call out someone whatever their views may be?

NO, I am not. Of course everyone has the right to disagree, but a couple of posts on this page illustrate exactly what I am concerned about. What concerns me is that the definition of hate speech is very subjective, and can be used to silence opposition to one's views, and the tone of some of those objecting to KH demonstrates all too clearly that they themselves are full of hate, but "their hate", coming invariably from a left-wing perspective, is of course perfectly legitimate, as they are fighting hate, aren't they? Many on here have suggested that the best course of action is simply to ignore KH and her ilk, but those hating her don't want that, do they? They much prefer to give voice to their own hate. Sorry -I think I have rambled!

 

[wellquickwoody]

In fairness, it's one of those rare examples where a comparison to Hitler is, to some extent, relevant.

I agree about people sharing their opinion, entirely, but this isn't about debate IMO, this is someone spouting hateful untruths. Hopkins obviously has very strong view on immigration for which she is handsomely rewarded by the Mail (© Stewart Lee) and she is, of course, perfectly entitled to share those views within the confines of decency and the law. Clearly she has not been convicted of hate speech so some would use that fact to defend her but I think she oversteps the mark.

For what it's worth, if we're going to vehemently defend one's freedom to speak, then surely we must also offer that same robust to defence of freedom to protest against said speaker.

To protest within the confines of the law, yes, but that would not happen now would it?

 

[alfredmizen]

She is the bully. I stand up to cowardly pieces of vile sh*te like her because I can’t stand bullies. She really is the very definition of scum and quite frankly the world would be a much better place if she wasn’t alive.

Really? How do you ‘stand up’ to bullies like Katie Hopkins , said m asking , literally , how ?

 

[pastafarian]

Nobody wants to silence anyone for opinions or views. If someone said, for example, "We cannot afford to keep supporting immigration", "we must reduce the levels of immigration" etc etc, then I wholeheartedly disagree but they're expressing their viewpoint, no problem.

What Hopkins says is “Some of our towns are festering sores, plagued by swarms of migrants and asylum seekers, shelling out benefits like Monopoly money”. That's hate speak and that's why I am happy to see her silenced.

In the context of free speech, I believe you should learn the difference between Hate Speech that constitutes being illegal and can be prosecuted against under various statutes and speech you hate.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Really? How do you ‘stand up’ to bullies like Katie Hopkins , said m asking , literally , how ?

Well it depends on the situation does it not? But calling them out on it is the absolute first thing I would do, and anyone with any integrity would do.

 

[alfredmizen]

No, no she isn’t. She’s so far from correct that it’s scary just how wrong she is. Unless, of course, you were referring to her political leanings?

No , I’m referring to what she said , she is right ,what she said is correct

 

[Hastings gull]

You’ve highlighted the first point which is my opinion based on her numerous tweets, posts, TV viewings, all of which have shown her to be a nasty, nasty piece of work. Anyone with a brain cell can see that.

You’ve then highlighted the second part which, I presume, is to make your point even further. The problem with doing so shows either your own ignorance to some of the things she’s said or done (which, in itself, is fair enough but makes your own judgment irrelevant), or you agree with her views and are making the point to support them, which really is a poor reflection of you.

Ultimately we live in what should be a progressive society, but it’s a society that is actually increasingly regressive socially with an increasing number of prejudiced, hate filled actions by an ever increasing number of people putting society under more and more pressure. Many of the statements made by Katie Hopkins not only inflame this hate, but often instigate it. Her views verge, quite frankly, on being scary and without a doubt they illustrate her bullying tactics on some quite serious issues.

There are many people throughout history who the world would’ve been better without. Stating such a thing doesn’t make me a bully or a bad person. It makes me a realistic and a rational enough human being to be able to weigh up the actions and opinions of some people that have shared some pretty scary views or done some pretty scary things. Katie Hopkins is one of those people; she’s toxic and the world would be better without her quite frankly.

My friend -YOU miss the point. At no time have I said that I necessarily agree with some of things she says, and you are right in that to point out that there are bad people does not make you a bully or a bad person. However, it is the manner in which you pointed it out, that is concerning, However much you try to wriggle out by saying that it is her language, the fact is that it was your language and to wish someone dead shows all too clearly that you are in reality no better.

 

[alfredmizen]

Well it depends on the situation does it not? But calling them out on it is the absolute first thing I would do, and anyone with any integrity would do.

How ‘brave’ of you to ‘stand up’ to such a bully , you do t see courage like that every day

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

My friend -YOU miss the point. At no time have I said that I necessarily agree with some of things she says, and you are right in that to point out that there are bad people does not make you a bully or a bad person. However, it is the manner in which you pointed it out, that is concerning, However much you try to wriggle out by saying that it is her language, the fact is that it was your language and to wish someone dead shows all too clearly that you are in reality no better.

Do you think the world would be better if Hitler was still here and had continued with his genocidal tirade?

I’m going to assume the answer is no judging by the first bit of waffle you wrote. Well, this is not only a woman that is too extreme for UKIP, this is a woman that is suggesting genocide as a solution to the Manchester attacks. So yes, I stand by my point - the world would be a better place without her, in the same way it’s a better place without all people that think genocide is acceptable.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

How ‘brave’ of you to ‘stand up’ to such a bully , you do t see courage like that every day

How brave of you to protect such a fragile, peaceful woman.

 

[Hastings gull]

Do you think the world would be better if Hitler was still here and had continued with his genocidal tirade?

I’m going to assume the answer is no judging by the first bit of waffle you wrote. Well, this is not only a woman that is too extreme for UKIP, this is a woman that is suggesting genocide as a solution to the Manchester attacks. So yes, I stand by my point - the world would be a better place without her, in the same way it’s a better place without all people that think genocide is acceptable.

You first question is absurd, simplistic nonsense. Suggesting -did she or didn't she? Or have you decided that that is what she wanted, because that is what you want to believe. And then to lend a bit of credence, you go on to include all folk who think that genocide is acceptable. And anyone who disagrees with you, must of course be advocating tolerating genocide.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Can we sort out the quote brackets on this thread please ?

 

[looney]

Do you think the world would be better if Hitler was still here and had continued with his genocidal tirade?

I’m going to assume the answer is no judging by the first bit of waffle you wrote. Well, this is not only a woman that is too extreme for UKIP, this is a woman that is suggesting genocide as a solution to the Manchester attacks. So yes, I stand by my point - the world would be a better place without her, in the same way it’s a better place without all people that think genocide is acceptable.

Would that include the genocides Muslims have regularly inflicted on various peoples, that would include deliberately preying on females of other cultures?

 

[ewe2]

I feel i am a better person in not having met this woman or her opponents.....!!

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

You first question is absurd, simplistic nonsense. Suggesting -did she or didn't she? Or have you decided that that is what she wanted, because that is what you want to believe. And then to lend a bit of credence, you go on to include all folk who think that genocide is acceptable. And anyone who disagrees with you, must of course be advocating tolerating genocide.

It’s as absurd as you suggesting I’m on the same level as someone who has suggested genocide as a solution to a terrorist attack on the basis that I think the world would be better without said person expressing their views in said world (and let’s be clear, I never suggested murdering her or eradicating her existence, merely that the world would be a better and happier place without her in it, as it would be without all genocide enthusiasts - you implied anything more sinister). And yes, she did suggest it as a solution in a tweet - was my choice of language too ambiguous for you to grasp? As to the last point you’ve made, are you suggesting genocide is an acceptable solution to anything? Because that’s what you’re implying in this instance... in fact, you’ve really not been clear about your viewpoint is on Katie Hopkins and her opinions. Do you think they’re a positive influence? Do you think she expresses healthy views that lead to the betterment of our society and the people within it?