Homophobic Bigot Loses Case.......

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-56089759
...bet she wished she'd kept her trap shut.

[Khandro]

'Brainwashing' a once fashionable term dating from the Cold War era, went out use long ago.

[andy-hughes]

pixie - // You can persuade anyone to do anything, potentially. The point is, whose fault that is. And usually (ignoring special needs), its the person who does the action. Not whatever they read, whoever they spoke to. //

I am confused - are you saying that the fault lies with the persuader, for want of a better word, or the persuaded?

[pixie374]

Nobody is persuaded against their will. If I try to make you commit a crime, and you do (as you aren't mentally challenged), that is your own decision. The law needs to catch up, that in normal circumstances, no adult will do something against their will, because of something they read.

[pixie374]

Zacs, because it is literally impossible. Nobody had ever yet succeeded, and many have tried.

[Zacs-Master]

Do you have any, like, ‘science’ to back any of your statements up, pix?

[pixie374]

All of it, so far, zacs. Have a look. I'm sure you'll agree it might have been very useful in some war situations, but nobody has been able to do it yet. Have a look and show me.
The closest I have ever seen is Derren Brown, and even he claims he can't brainwash.

[Zacs-Master]

I’ve never used the word brainwash. I’m talking about coercion. Can you give me a link to some scientific proof that people can’t be brainwashed?
If you counter my request with ‘prove it can be done’ I will cite Waco again and the fact it’s enshrined in law (sorry, pix, but it’s too easy to just say you think some laws are outdated) and I’ll throw in the KKK and A person who stays in a violent marriage, just for good measure.

[Mamyalynne]

Someone doesn't need to be classed as mentally challenged to be open to persuasion, they can be obsessed or besotted by their persuader.

[Zacs-Master]

And as a side question, what on earth are ‘normal circumstances’?

[Zacs-Master]

Damn, can I change my first para in my 23.01 post to
‘I’ve never used the word brainwash. I’m talking about coercion. Can you give me a link to some scientific proof that people can’t be coerced’

[pixie374]

Zacs, the examples you are using are showing more than coercion, a violent marriage is a physical threat, so is the kkk. We already agreed that force could make someone do almost anything.
But, this is about using words (social media to be exact) "causing," somebody to be violent against their will.
I think you are mixing together different things. I don't have links (I'm 46... so unfortunately all my education isn't directly from google...). How many posts would you, as a sane person, need to read, before blowing people up?
The propensity and will is already there.

[andy-hughes]

I am repeating my point, but although I would agree with Pix that you can't make someone do something against their will, if you persuade them that it is their will, you can get anyone to do anything, whether you persuade them in person or through media is irrelevant.

[archibaldy]

An interesting but very sad case in point, from the US is that of Michelle Carter who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after she coerced her boyfriend to kill himself entirely remotely via text message and phone calls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy

"The case was expected by some to set a legal precedent,[55] regarding, as Ray Sanchez and Natisha Lance of CNN put it, "whether it's a crime to tell someone to commit suicide." Sanchez and Lance also stated that "The ruling... may spur lawmakers to codify the behavior highlighted in the case as criminal."[56] The judge had noted that Carter had willed Roy's death, that she did not order him out of the truck and that her actions "put him in that toxic environment" which "constituted reckless conduct" and "that the conduct caused the death of Mr. Roy."[56]

While U.S. law does not allow the lower-court decision to bind other courts,[57] legal professionals believe it could have a social effect by raising other courts' attention to new, digital methods of committing crimes.[58] The case also attempts to redefine the social spectrum in which attitudes and behaviors would qualify as criminal that were not considered criminal before.[59]"

[pixie374]

Maybe, Andy. But if you persuade someone to change their mind- they have changed their mind. It isn't about persuasion, but whose fault or responsibility it becomes.

[pixie374]

It was, archi, I heard about that. A very vulnerable man.

[naomi24]

It’s not about ‘fault’. The fact is - and it is a fact - people can be convinced by words to commit acts of violence. How do you think Muslim terrorists are radicalised, Pixie? I’ll tell you. By words. Yes, I know, despite never being willing or able to explain the extraordinary imbalance in the numbers suffering from mental health issues within the Muslim culture compared to other sections of society, you insist that those people do it because they’re men and it’s a man thing. You are wrong - and utilising a modicum of common sense will confirm that.

[pixie374]

Apparently not, naomi. If the fault is in the book, then why aren't Muslim women committing equal crime? The problem is with the reader, not what they read.
In fact, I thought you had read it yourself? Which crime did you suddenly decide to commit?

[naomi24]

I advised utilising a little common sense, pixie. Try it.

[pixie374]

After you.... BTW, I never said anything about Muslims or mental health issues. You've made that up.

[naomi24]

I didn't say you had. I mentioned all of that as an excellent example of words convincing people to commit acts of violence... which in that case they do.