It's this kind of overreaction by the police that's actually 'radicalizing' people.
I like Andrew Doyle quote on this:
> In this new woke era, our law enforcement agencies are not content to police crime, but also non-crime. This is a huge relief, because for a long while now too many citizens have been not breaking the law and getting away with it.
But I'm not sure why GBNews would be grifting with it. Conservatives have been in power in the UK for 12 years now and they've done nothing about it.
I just think it's worth rebutting, that the police are not combing twitter for anything borderline.
These are complaints that the public are making to the police. There is a relevant law about malicious comms, so the police are obliged to open a case.
> this new woke era
Give me a break. Members of the public are taxed to provide a police service. If they feel like they're a victim of malicious communications, they're allowed to go to the police. Nothing to do with being "content to police non-crime" or being "woke".
>Give me a break. Members of the public are taxed to provide a police service. If they feel like they're a victim of malicious communications, they're allowed to go to the police. Nothing to do with being "content to police non-crime" or being "woke".
And you act as though that's a good thing?
100k people going through the work of reporting what is likely mostly unfunny boomer memes and thinly veiled trolling is a much stronger indictment of the current state of affairs than 100k instances of bored cops going looking for violations of some broad law from the comfort of their desks.
The radicalization that happens in circles like the one that image comes from, in addition to or instead of the one (I hope) you mean, is not one against undemocratic practices, abuse of power etc. It is one against people who are trans (or queer in general). And that radicalization does harm. It leads to shame and discrimination. It leads to violence. And yes, it _kills_.
Please make sure you (and others) know what radicalization you mean, and make sure that the one that is happening is correct.
"Well obviously pedophiles are bad. You wouldn't defend a pedophile! Unless.. you are a pedophile?"
Of course you are going to label your opponent in unfavorable terms. But here's the thing - why do you need to?
If your opponent is actually a murderer, you don't need to talk them up as a Sig Heiling murderer who hates gay people. You can just be truthful and call them a murderer.
If the only offense you have is to slander your opponent... you might be making up the outrage.
Clearly the meme was not pro-Nazi.
What was the meme.
Context is key to understanding complex thoughts, even ugly bigoted ones, I'm concerned that you aren't including it. Lawrence Fox is not an LGBT ally in any way, and his tweet and the retweet of this news story were not funny, they were attacks.
'Haha so funny, it's not pro-Nazi, it's just saying other people are Nazis.'
Ah yes, classic strategies never die.