The real crime’s a grown man unironically going by “Count Dankula” tbh
Thankfully Count Dunked-on-ula (ho ho ho) did everything possible to get away from the idea that he might harbour alt-right/neo-nutzi tendencies so as to make it clear that it was just a joke.
Oh no wait he joined UKIP, a party that has had upper echelon bosses quit while accusing its leader Batten of making it a nutzi party.
Oh well. At least Dankula still has the backing of noted sense-maker and not actual criminal Tommy Robinson right?
6 Likes
Just putting out there that he wasn’t doing it for the comedy, as little comedy that is. He has confirmed himself that he supports UKIP, who aren’t exactly strangers to supporting the beliefs of what he “joked” about.
Possibly unpopular opinion: It is frankly nothing but stupid to make “edgy” jokes on public platforms. If you wan’t to make a certain type of joke, that can bei, and this case, was rather discriminative, then you might want to avoid doing it publically where people who do not appriciate such things are subjected to it. Common decensy.
1 Like
When you start to decide which people are comedians and which aren’t or deciding arbitrarily which things are wrong to say and which aren’t, you are at a very slippery slope.
Nobody says that you needed to like the video or find it tasteful or funny or anything. But if you say that he should go to jail for that, then that’s case and point an exact definition of
tyranny
###: tyranny
/ˈtɪr(ə)ni/
noun
- cruel and oppressive government or rule.
“refugees fleeing tyranny and oppression”
synonyymit: despotism, absolutism, absolute power, autocracy, dictatorship, undemocratic rule, reign of terror, totalitarianism, Fascism;
-
a state under cruel and oppressive government.
-
cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.
Which again, I think is appalling considering we’re talking about a western democracy, not a police state.
Well again, what is the appropriate platform? Is it a hired area whereinwhich a person hosts a live comedy show? Is it a video on youtube? Is it somebody giving a live performance on a street corner?
You have to be pragmatic about the definition.
3 Likes
He’s gonna go to jail for not adhering to the court ordered fine. Unless you’re taking the stance that people should be allowed to ignore court rulings and get away scot free?
3 Likes
But spinning it around clockwise, then anyone can just call themselves as a comedian or say its a joke to get away with anything? It is an extremly poor defense.
Not tyranny. The country had/have laws, he broke those, and that is what he was charged for. Breaking the laws, knowingly, then just completly refusing to backpedal on that he might have done something stupid and instead refuses to follow up on the verdict by not paying fines either.
Oh yes, that delightful fellow. https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/17437321.tommy-robinson-supporters-attack-wycombe-rape-charity-for-advice-leaflet/?fbclid=IwAR34TLNcCvhf5TDH0zjpFnV_LnE4wKqjLBuTlzSWxgEZ7M-ssDoU5tRiFHg
“They offer services to minorities, therefore they hate white women.” Talk about right-wing virtue-signalling, especially because they don’t care about women anyway.
1 Like
Considering the time of the bill has already passed, he should technically already be there- But he isn’t, for whatever reason.
If it were a simple circumstance of somebody refusing to pay a parking ticket (which is very much not an arbitrary thing decided on whim of the political environment) and going to jail for that, I’d no issue with it.
I think he’s exercising his right of civil disobedience. Now that may prove to work or not but that’s asides the point.
I don’t think you should be under normal circumstances be able to just flat out refuse the ruling of law, but this clearly isn’t a normal thing.
Well, that’s where we come down to the definitions I put up earlier.
Was it done with malicious intent? No. There’s no context to proof that.
Was it done against the public goodwill? Maybe.
And getting away with anything is really a poor strawman considering we’re not talking about everything (or rather, I’m not). I still condemn people who, for example, use language & their words to cause monetary harm or incite violence against a group. You can’t take the stance of “it was just a joke lmao” if there’s concrete proof of you telling somebody to do harm to x group of people, with the context condemning it unquestionably and unwaveringly (such as being at the head of a nationalist group and calling for people to take arms against a group of people).
That’s what it is by definition on dictionary. Arbitrary use of power is tyranny.
Nor has he ever backpedalled on having done something stupid- He’s made a point several times that even if he knew where’d it end again and had the choice to do the other thing, he wouldn’t, because in his view this is such a glaring freedom of speech issue that he’d rather make himself an example of it rather than condone it.
2 Likes
Part of exercising civil disobedience is the recognition that you’re gonna get punished for it.
No, it very much is. He was accused of violating hate speech laws, found guilty, lost his appeals and subsequently has avoided paying the fine. The fact that you’ve refused to acknowledge my points on him backing noted far/alt-right viewpoints/people making it clear that it WASN’T a joke and instead likely a sincerely held belief expressed earnestly is super telling.
Is he an actual nutzi? I dunno, but right now he’s strutting like a duck and squawking like a duck, so he’s doing a good consistent impression of a duck and is being plucked accordingly.
I know that you love your edginess in being able to throw out racial slurs willy-nilly but stop whining snowflake and man up.
8 Likes
Imagine living in a country where your criminal sentence can be literally based on which party you support/are part of, despite those parties being legal.
Also I’m unsure what’s your point with Tommy Robertson? He’s several times said he doesn’t agree with everything he says and does- And it wouldn’t surprise me if that was the case with this one as well. Moreover, is he to be condemned (or responsible) for the actions of others or their ideas?
What a great + based system for a base of law.
I’m unsure what you’re implying here.
He’s frequently said that the police can, quote on quote, come and get him at any point now into the jail- Which, they haven’t.
He’s ok with going to jail. He’s not ok with the basis of why he’s going there, so what are you disagreeing on exactly?
When you can arbitrarily decide which context counts without any actual shred of evidence anything malicious having been done/happened as a result, yes, your argument is groundless and weak.
t guy who goes on rants about how retail isn’t doing his social status any service.
“man up” indeed.
6 Likes
Imagine context actually applying to sentencing like it does for literally every other crime except apparently this one where context of his actions and displayed attitudes/beliefs are apparently off limits because “muh tyranny”.
Weirdly enough you will be judged by who you associate with. Doing so is an action, we are judged by our actions. That’s part of the whole context thing. So yeah, if you pal around with and actively defend people like Tommy Robinson people will go “hm maybe they share similarities”.
Unlike you, my dude. What context am I missing?
I’ve never worked in retail so this is a weird dig and I’m gonna need more context for what I apparently said and when.
4 Likes
This is literally whataboutism.
Again, your argument is weak because it -is- bereft of context. That’s the whole point of the critique, because if you can arbitrarily decide what is condemnable and what isn’t, that’s a problem.
That isn’t what I asked.
I asked, whether it’s ok to be condemned based on the company you keep/associate yourself with?
If your friend does a crime, does that mean that you are somehow responsible for his crimes or that you can be criminally condemned simply because you associate yourself with the person?
I don’t care whether you think it is normatively alright, I asked whether you think that’s how sentencing should work. Being convicted based on other people’s actions you have no control over.
Yeah, open up that can of worms.
5 Likes
I…asked you specifically what context I was missing. Right here:
So what am I missing that makes my argument weak?
Cool questions but not relevant to the situation. Meechan wasn’t convicted for being mates with Robinson, nor vice versa. I pointed out that their association was context pointing to the fact that it wasn’t “just a PRANK BRO” as you’d like to show. He was convicted for hate speech. Dunno why you’re deflecting.
Edit: I’m lying, I do know why you’re deflecting lmao.
And I’d really like that clarification on the retail comment. Are you mistaking me for someone else or what.
2 Likes
He had jews flying over from Israel and the local synagoge to protest his arrest during his court trial. Ricky Gervais, David Baddiel, Kenan Malik, Douglas Murray, Jonathan Pie, Shappi Khorsandi, Stephen Fry are also included. It seems like you’re ignoring a lot of context here to paint a portrayal which doesn’t add up when viewed outside of a narrow lense, because we clearly have university educated, prominent comedians and intellectuals condemning the sentencing.
Labeling him is extremely lazy, especially given he was once a marxist and has a literal communist tattoo.
5 Likes
What makes the action undeniably malicious in intent? Undeniable, mind you, not something that you can interpret.
What proof is there that it is, again, against the common goodwill?
You’re the one who brought up the UKIP. The “just a prank bro”, and other circumstances. Not me. You.
So in other words you agree that it’s probably a really terrible thing from a justice point of view to condemn a person for the actions of others.
You don’t need to like the guys edgyness or weird habits of life or even his youtube channel but that’s not the point. The point is that his sentencing was arbitrary.
4 Likes
Labelling him far-right is extremely lazy? Is that why he was a guest speaker at the far-right March for Freedom rally in 2018? 
It’s not the people defending him on its own, its who he’s choosing to associate with and speak for and speak to.
If he truly believed it was “just a joke” and that he didn’t believe it he’s doing a terribad job of showing it.
The “just a prank bro” was literally his-and-yours entire defence against the sentencing. That it was a “joke”, that it was “satirical” (of what I’m not sure).
Nope, it was decided quite reasonably that it wasn’t a joke, and was in fact hate speech, and he had done nothing at all to diminish that since his sentencing.
If he’d acted differently maybe I wouldn’t be arguing it. But he didn’t. His actions since sentencing prove that it was correct. Idk maybe I’m just not a fan of hatespeech and we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.
And will you PLEASE tell me what the retail dig was so I can stop trying to work out what you were on about?
4 Likes
Wow if Count Dankula is a racist, a horrible example of humanity…
Then what does that make Frankie Boyle?
2 Likes
Don’t know who Frankie Boyle is, but Dankula who this is about is undeniably and unironically just that. He openly supports, and works with groups and people who aren’t just “alt-right” but express and firmly believe in neo-n.azi opinions, believes, and general way of thinking and life. He expresses these opinions himself, but tries to deflect it by going “just a joke broh” and refuses to follow with court verdicts.
He isn’t just a criminal breaking the law, but one with alt-right/n.azi sympathic believes, and proudly boasts all this.
2 Likes
If we want to be to semantic I could bring up innocuous view points held by prominent fascists and murderers that are commonly held by other people in the left wing parties, that how ever doesn’t mean all of their views are agreed upon by those same people.
I do not believe in guilt by association. No. If they are the only one’s willing to protest and condemn the actions that are leading to his arrest, though quite clearly we can see they are not the only ones, then what do you expect?
I’d say it’s very condescending to presume that Israeli jews, the local scottish jews and other prominent personalities can’t differentiate between someone who is a threat to their well being and not. You’re ignoring the context behind the joke and pretending it’s something it is not, like an ideologue.
3 Likes
Oh if Dankula’s joke was hate speach, Frankie Boyle should be in prison multiple times over.
Go ahead give him a youtube search, they are both Scottish, both cross the line, but one of them does it in front of a studio audience rather than webcam and thus doesn’t get arrested for his ‘hate speach’.
4 Likes