Have you been leafing through those files?

Can enlightenment be achieved without appeal to any supernatural elements?

Well the problem with this is that enlightenment as an idea and a goal was introduced in a system which took the supernatural for granted*. Although, what was meant by the supernatural was very different to what is meant now. Indeed everything was so different then in every way. So in reality in the modern world, we have to reinvent it in a modern context. This may be where the root of the conflict of ideas about the supernatural and modern practice arises.

If by enlightenment you mean the awakening of your true being, or what Google describes as;

enlightenment in Eastern religions, particularly within the Indian context of Buddhism and Hinduism, refers to a profound shift in consciousness, the cessation of suffering (dukkha), and the realization of the true nature of reality. It is generally understood as an awakening from the ignorance (avidya) that binds beings to the cycle of rebirth, rather than just an intellectual achievement.

Then this can be done absent any religion, ideology, or teaching. It is a natural process which can be done in isolation. But religious teachings and practice provide a system that helps, or directs people in achieving this goal**.

My advice to you would be to view the supernatural teachings in Buddhism as symbolic, or allegorical. They provide a narrative which provides a framework, or intellectual structure that the individual can use to build a personal narrative which enables them to undertake that natural process. From what I’ve experienced from my brief foray into Buddhism, a few years ago now, is that it is the meditation based practice itself which is important here, not the religious teachings.

*I don’t want to get into discussions of religious teachings and ideology here, as I’m no expert and focus more on practice myself than studying religion.

**It is important to mention here, that to undergo this process, there are a number of stumbling blocks, which most people fail to navigate at some point along their journey and to go all the way, would require guidance of some sort. Although I think there are “naturals” who emerge from time to time in societies who get there on their own. Also, I don’t think anyone can be a candidate for enlightenment, but only those who are at a suitable point of natural development. Which in their nature would cause them to seek out a suitable school, or route to undergo the process.

but roaming enforcers of Sharia in that case (and this well before Oct 7), and in the other, roaming groups of unhinged leftists assaulting and harassing random passersby(unfortunately, I have only instagram videos for this.

These are rare extremist lone wolf, or small group actions. If we’re talking about this kind of extremism. It has been on the rise since the allied attack on Afghanistan in 2002, but really got going after the second gulf war and the rise of Isis. There has been quite a lot of activity around this, but when it comes to day to day life for the ordinary person it is an extremely rare event and doesn’t affect their lives and there are no no-go areas as suggested by Trump. Also the anti terrorism police are highly effective at monitoring and foiling these plots. I think over a 95% success rate (I don’t have the figures in front of me at the moment).
Regarding “unhinged leftists”, there is no such thing, it’s possible there are a handful in a population of 65 million, but it really doesn’t exist (Unless you are referring to climate protesters).

Regarding extreme right wing violence, there is a fare amount, it just doesn’t make the news so much these days. Remember a member of parliament (Joe Cox) was murdered by them in 2016.

Currently, there's no mutuality even of the facts admitted.

Yes, I know, it’s a highly charged issue.

The FBI just raided the Fulton County storage of election results for the 2020 election in Georgia.

looks like their looking for ways to back up Trump’s claims that it was via postal votes that the 2020 election was rigged.
It follows the pattern in the U.K. of the far right claiming voter fraud via postal votes. Something which is patently false.

I think the issue here is that social opinion is more effective

Yes, I think this is getting to the nub of it. The phenomena of the majority of the population addicted to social media, where they get their dissemination of current affairs, rather than watching BBC news, or other reputable news sources. Has resulted in a kind of Wild West of opinion, truth and world view. Where people are siloed into separate groups with very different opinions and beliefs. Where they can become indoctrinated with a particular position, or showered with self affirming content, drowning or over powering any personal ideological, or moral compass.

I think the authorities are struggling to adapt to this and politics is in turmoil because of the way it can be manipulated.

People shouldn't be interfering with other's beliefs in these ways, and we have literal roaming gangs of enforcers of political opinions, whether Islamic or Democratic (I simply don't know of any on the right at this time - if i'm ignorant, i'm ignorant).

Yes, there is some of this going on in the U.K. There are two main groups at the moment. The Islamic, anti-Jewish crowd and the far right anti-immigration crowd. (There are a handful of smaller groups, but they don’t really cut through like the main two) The Islamic crowd has been stimulated into action due to the genocide going on in Palestine and the fact that Western governments seem to be endorsing it and supplying the offender with weapons. The far right group has been mobilised by Nigel Farage over the issue of illegal immigration, which has amalgamated with the traditional right wing groups such as the BNP and the Tommy Robinson crowd.

However, I don’t see any censorship going on here. Rather a public order issue due to large and regular protests and marches. Along with some extremely violent terrorist attacks, from both sides. The tabloid media has been using this to stir up a range of angry opinions including on immigration and the idea of free speech being under attack and two tier policing. Both which may be happening in a very small number of notable cases, which are blown up into national issues by wall to wall coverage in the media.

Of course the real head that should roll here (because it won't be Trump) is Stephen Miller.

Yes, he gave ICE agents federal immunity,

To all ICE officers: You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. Anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony. You have immunity to perform your duties, and no one — no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist — can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties. The Department of Justice has made clear that if officials cross that line into obstruction, into criminal conspiracy against the United States or against ICE officers, then they will face justice."

https://www.fox9.com/news/trump-adviser-stephen-miller-tells-ice-have-federal-immunity-when-dealing-protesters

Thanks for the comments. I do agree with what you say about free speech on social media. As it’s a new thing, and society and the authorities are still sorting out how they will react and use it. I do see it as somewhere between private and published. A grey area perhaps.

Im saying I don’t care. I do not recognize/accept your exclusion of published material as separate from free speech. Free speech isnt about how many people are reached. I make no distinction between public or private free speech on this matter.

Well ideally I would agree with you here. But there are differences in the effects of the speech on the public. So there is a difference. Also, I am a cartoonist in my spare time, I know there are no-go areas, even if I am only disseminating them to close friends, or family. But I don’t feel my freedom of speech to be restricted. I know there are taboo words, or opinions and there always have been. There is no absolute free speech within a society. Also within all the people I know, I haven’t seen any evidence of anyone’s free speech being restricted (other than in the case of long established taboo areas) and no one has ever told me, their free speech is being restricted.

As Ive said, incitement and libel. The “spectrum of material” has to be directly and clearly one of those otherwise my stance is it should not be restricted.
Certainly not jokes and certainly not opinion, whatever they may be.

The use of explicit material, such as revenge porn, grooming of minors and online fraud which also interest the police.

There is also gaslighting, manipulation of the Overton window and the manipulation of elections. The corruption of politics. Which can occur. Areas which are of no interest to the police, at this time.

Going back to the cartoons, there is a famous cartoonist I follow on X, who inadvertently included an anti-Semitic trope in a cartoon a couple of years ago. He was chastised in the media, had to give serious apologies and nearly lost his job for a national newspaper. And yet, nothing illegal was done and the police would not have any interest in it. I can give many more examples like this. None of them cases where censorship was enacted by the authorities. But where there is often some kind of chastisement by society. As there has been in one form or another throughout history.

So I’m still not seeing these new restrictions of the freedom of speech. Care to give an example?

In either case though (lets assume that every case is a publication issue) that is still clearly wrong in a democratic, adult society. Particularly one where, increasingly, use of social media is akin to talking shit with at the pub. It’s a bit of a category error to capture social media posts by non-public figures with that i think (but this is just my opinion).

Yes, agreed. There probably does need to be a distinction made between the two.

Its not like that at all, no one is forcing people to read and listen to published material so your analogy fails.

For the analogy to work, it only has to demonstrate that more people will be exposed to the material than if it were expressed in private. It is self evident. Or are you saying publishing speech doesn’t reach a wider audience?

Not opinions, jokes or pugs doing the nazi salute (yes, even to a wide audience) are not. Indeed the police have more important things to do, such as preventing murder or rape.

Yes and the police will do their job. I would think that the police would only look into it after a specific public order issue has been brought to their attention.

I agree that some content on social media is harmless when it reaches a wider audience. But there is a spectrum of material and there is a clear phenomena of populists, or bad actors, for whatever reason exploiting the process. This is also on the police’s radar.

There is also a pattern emerging in these debates. It only seems to be issues given publicity by the right wing press, or populists groups where there is a free speech concern. When the speech doesn’t not fit these agendas, it is of no concern. Indeed it is often the same people who might start saying this other speech should be restricted. It’s odd that, isn’t it?

Correction, freedom to publish.

I just dont buy the distinction as I’ve already stated

Cool, that’s your prerogative. I didn’t see an issue particularly when I first took to social media. But then I kept hearing stories of posters being sued for defamation. Then I realised that posting on social media is legally a form of publishing. To publish speech is to amplify it, meaning that large numbers of people will hear it. This makes it a special kind of free speech, the freedom to communicate what you have to say to large numbers of people. It’s like walking around in a crowd of people with a loud haler shouting everything you’re thinking, so that everyone there has to hear it.
Now we are free to say anything we want to our friends and our family, even a stranger. There are no laws against it. This is free speech. But should we also be free to shout it through a loud haler in a crowded place? Is this a necessary part of free speech? Or should free speech include the freedom to publish in a paper, or broadcast on the TV anything I want to say, whenever I like?

“May” be “risk” of incitement or abuse (huh?) is flimsy and weak as a basis for authoritarian control.

Well the police have a role to play in society, they are experts at their job and that job includes maintaining public order, amongst many other things.

You can say anything you like, or teach your dog anything you like in private, or in a non public space. When you do it in a public space there may be a risk of incitement, or abuse, of others, such as vulnerable groups sharing that space. The authorities will police those spaces with an eye to public order. On most occasions the risk is low, so the authorities will not intervene.

When it comes to publishing the law is more strict because the extent of exposure could increase exponentially and is unpredictable.

The one redeeming quality of the Sudanese government is that it isn't clever enough to hide its incompetency and corruption, and therefore no one views it as a vessel for meaningful change.

He’s talking about naturalised Sudanese U.S. citizens, who are being targeted by ICE.

Agreed. It’s actually far worse than what we’re hearing.

There are lots of people who would be of interest to ICE hold up in their houses in Minneapolis having to have food delivered by friends. They’re too scared to go outside.

They’re rough people, in many cases from jails, prisons, from mental institutions, insane asylums. You know, insane asylums, that’s ‘Silence of the Lambs’ stuff. ... Hannibal Lecter, anybody know Hannibal Lecter?”

You know where he got the idea that many of them come from insane asylums. They’re asylum seekers. Who came from asylums.

I agree with your premise, but would suggest that this system is better than all the others (except perhaps some forms of socialism, which are rarely successful).

Democracy is about preventing authoritarian control of a population. What the political party’s do when they get into office is not all that important, provided the democratic principle is maintained.

We have a different problem when it comes to money. Capitalism has turned toxic, big finance strips out opportunity for small players to compete. The middle classes are becoming squeezed leaving the super rich and the poor (people who are struggling to keep their heads above water). This kind of polarisation is destructive.

So…no problem with free speech to see here.

I answered that earlier in the thread;

As a person on the ground I can’t think of any speech, which wasn’t already taboo, being restricted in the population. What there is is some cancellation in University speaking events around sensitive issues such as gender, transsexuality, issues which have been exploited by the populists and some political correctness around these issues in institutions. These are limited circumstances and forums, while the public at large has no restriction at all on their free speech.

If you can give an example of speech which is becoming more restricted I’d be interested to know. Then we would have something to debate.

is mindset, his symbolism, and his rhetoric all underscore the point he made to The New York Times this month: his own mind and morality are the only limits on his global power. This is Fascism 101.

Except he’s a Klutz, just look at his performance at Davos. Mark Rutte patted him on the back and pretended to make a deal, so Trump could save face.
Also he’s in cognitive decline, with contenders for the top spot starting to jostle behind him. The MAGA base isn’t big enough to keep the show on the road, once Trump is out of the picture.

The parallels with Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party in the U.K. are there. It all fell apart like a cheap suit and the party imploded. The rats are fleeing the sinking ship and joining the Reform Party.

There isn’t a hard right alternative in the U.S., where will they flee to?

You haven't given a reply to my post about Trump's fascism

He’s a troll, best left alone.

So…no problem to see here.

That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying it isn’t about free speech, but rather about public order and the authorities grappling with the recent developments in social media. While trying not to get drawn into political rows.

Riots are the “public order” issue. Peoples feelings do not justify violence. Public order is maintained through laws other than free speech laws, like no rioting and violence and looting.

And the riots were incited through social media groups and the tabloid press. Now what are the police supposed to do about that? Just sit back and let the mob just roam around on the streets?

In the U.K. the authorities seem powerless when the ring leaders are politicians, or Media moguls. Either there aren’t the requisite powers in place, or they won’t go near them for fear of a backlash and greater public disorder.

It is commonplace for the authorities to label an issue political and then just leave it alone taking no action. So rather than the authorities clamping down, or repressing free speech. The opposite is happening. Political free speech is left alone, even when it is inciting a breakdown in public order, or crossing a line into racial prejudice. Leaving the authorities only able to deal with offenders when they commit criminal offences.

This is where the breakdown is happening. So infact free speech is alive and well in the U.K. and now includes incitement, where it is labelled political and racism because it’s alright for people to be racist if they have legitimate concerns about immigration. Infact it seems to be a greater offence in the media space for someone to accuse someone of being racist, than to actually be racist.

Only one South American country and two African countries. That’s a poor turnout, it looks as though South America and Africa favour China in the shakedown.

The UK is fucked on free speech. It’s insane so many refuse to even admit there is a problem, but humans are gonna human what can you do?

It isn’t, it’s a culture war fabrication whipped up by the tabloid media and populists.

You snuck racial prejudice in there.

Not snuck, it’s also a public order issue, because it spreads easily and once embedded is very difficult to dislodge. Take the case of the Southport riots, everyone rioting had strong feelings of racial prejudice. Racism has a peculiarly visceral, or primeval effect on people.

Bad actors in the press and in positions of authority are exactly the reason free speech is so so so important. Free speech protects all other rights and authoritarians, dictators etc always come for language and speech first.

Quite, so it’s not applicable in the case of the U.K. then.

And with regard to the press, in the U.K. the press is shouting the loudest about protecting free speech. Unless, by the way it’s the kind of free speech they don’t like.

Yes, incitement is a bit murky. Any laws surrounding it should be carefully considered.

As they are by the authorities. Unfortunately the tabloid press and the populists don’t operate to the same high standards.

I’m shaking in my boots.

Where in NZ are you? I like visiting NZ, I have a few friends in Nelson and like going tramping.

I have a feeling that bombing Iran is going set in motion a chain of events that ultimately results in AI taking over the planet, and reconfiguring humans into cyborg slaves.

You reading Musk’s mind now?

but instead he only got something.

What did he get? Apart from an embarrassed look on his face and a climb down.

I'm still confused as to what those concessions are exactly. From what I've heard about the framework deal it was essentially just the same arrangement that previously existed which already gave the US full control over Greenland's defense. At the very least when they did their thing in Venezuela they got Maduro. If he's gonna be risking a decades long alliance and causing Europe to seriously reconsider its ties to the US then I was expecting something more tangible to be honest.

You’re right, there were no concessions made. It was all just one giant ego trip for Trump, where people stood up to him and he had to back down. TACO.
What it did result in though, is that the EU leaders cannot now trust him, or the U.S. to act in good faith. This is resulting in a major change of geopolitical strategy in the EU and new alliances being forged, without the U.S.

I think you're being unnecessarily combative.

Yes, I’m being a bit of an attack dog here, I’ll try and tone it down a bit.

I think he was suggesting I was acting in bad faith, not you.

Good point. I should make a few exceptions for those things. I had in mind opinions but you’re right libel and incitement laws are important.

No worries.
This is the issue which keeps coming up in this thread. That the row over free speech takes situations where incitement and racial prejudice are occurring in a public arena insisting that it is a free speech issue. It isn’t, it’s a public order issue.

Where it occurs in private, not in a public arena it is allowed (within reason) and there are no restrictions on what you can say. But in a public space, it can be amplified by group activity and bad actors can use it to stir up a crowd.

This can clearly be seen in relation to the Southport riots (Farage riots) last year. Where incendiary comments and ideology were used to stir up mass rioting across the country. Farage and his cronies had started spreading the idea of two tier policing over the preceding months. Causing a large cohort of Reform Party followers to think that the police were victimising (white) people expressing racially controversial views, while allowing people of ethnic minorities free rein to say whatever they liked. This just required a trigger to set of mass rioting.

And yet, no one challenges Farage about this in the media and no charges have been brought. The only convictions were for criminal damage and assault for some of the rioters.

So laws around incitement and libel should be thrown out to defend free speech then?
You’ll be demanding we leave the ECHR next, presumably?

It’s not about speech, that is as free as it ever was, it’s about publishing.
So are you saying everyone should have the freedom to publish anything they would say in private without any consequence?

Is this genuinely something you want to stand behind? Be very careful.

It’s just my opinion after watching the speech. Can you say you watched it and found it coherent?

I have been a political cartoonist (in my spare time) for over 30yrs. I knew that there were places you just don’t go as a cartoonist. This is for two reasons, firstly, you don’t create cartoons which are gratuitously insulting to protected groups, such as religions. Or create images which will incite hatred etc. Or stray into socially established taboo issues.
Secondly, you are publishing a cartoon and social media is a form of publishing.

Part of the problem with this debate is the difference between speech which is published and which isn’t published. If it is published there are greater restrictions, because it can potentially reach large numbers of people and be used by groups to incite further hatred etc.

So this whole issue is about conflating personal freedom of speech and published free speech. And the sheeple who follow the populists either propagate the conflation, or don’t understand it.

If you want to see a racist out in the open, just watch Farage on the BBC and not being challenged by the interviewers.

If you watch the officer who fired the shots, he can be seen, reaching for his gun before the car moved. While he could see clearly that the victim was turning the steering wheel as far to the right as it would go. Demonstrating that she was intending to pull away to the right, away from the officer. He pulled the gun and fired in one movement in a split second. There was no hesitation, or warning given. The gun wasn’t shown to the victim to indicate that it might be used if she accelerated forwards. As he fired, he leaned into the car to make it look as though he was being hit by the car.
He had decided to kill the victim when he realised that she was going to attempt to drive away, rather than exist the vehicle. A few seconds before conducting the murder, which is why he remained in front of the vehicle, so that he could lean into it as it moved towards him. So he could claim she was attempting to run him down. This was premeditated murder.

or why an omnipotent God

If people are assuming an omnipotent God, when discussing what God is up to, all discussion is pointless.