You need to be careful when telling un-PC jokes on social media, if my experience is anything to go by.
The reason is that the censors who work for Twitter, Facebook, and the police are leftards who are too dumb to get anything but the simplest joke. Indeed, who but a leftard would even want to work as a censor?
My first brush with the police in this connection came a few months ago when I published a joke tweet inviting fake left ‘anti-fascists’ to turn up at a demonstration armed with knuckle dusters and iron bars. However, my tweet did not specify a precise date, time or place for the demonstration. The tweet was therefore obvious nonsense. At least I thought in my infinite lack of wisdom that it was obvious the tweet was a joke.
But that wasn’t the way the police saw it. They accused me of inciting violence. I wasn’t arrested or anything: they just gave me a talking to!
My second experience with social media’s censors came more recently. I published a tweet which took the mick out of what’s going on in Sweden, in particular the now common claim there that when an immigrant rapes a native Swede, the man or men perpetrating the rape are the victims rather than the woman being raped.
I said in my tweet that you might as well accuse Jews of being responsible for the “Holocaust” and Hitler being the victim.
But the censors at Facebook didn’t like that: they evidently thought I was claiming Jews were responsible for the Holocaust and banned me from Facebook for a week.
How dumb can you get?
Well, Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, appears to be all in favour of the £2million a year to be spent allegedly seeking out and dealing with internet trolls (surprise surprise!)
Just to be clear on what a troll is: (the Wikipedia definition is:) “In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.”
Well now, let’s take the four words “upset, inflammatory, extraneous and off-topic”, and we’ll start with “upset”. The internet is a bit of a rough and tumble: language is far from diplomatic some of the time. But then so too is some of the language in the House of Commons. To be consistent, presumably we should have officers from a Khan-style ‘ministry of thought’ control sitting in the Commons fining MPs who use undiplomatic language.
Moreover, how on Earth do you prove that it was someone’s deliberate INTENTION to upset, rather than their expressing a genuinely held belief? If someone says they think MPs are a collection of over-paid, ignorant, greedy, expense account fiddling time wasters, maybe that’s an accurate description of MPs. There are certainly people who have that sort of low opinion of MPs.
And much the same goes for “inflammatory”. The latter derogatory description of MPs could be construed as “inflammatory”. So what do we do? Make it illegal to use the above language about MPs?
As to “extraneous and off-topic”, it’s actually very easy to say things that are of that nature. I’m guilty of doing it myself occasionally even when engaged in discussions which are of a very technical and unemotional nature on my favourite topic, which is economics. But should making “off-topic” comments be a crime or should it justify censorship?
Personally, I’d never dream of censoring anyone for making off-topic remarks. When I do spot someone making an off-topic remark, and that’s happened dozens of times in recent years, I just tell them I think their remark is off-topic. End of. Problem sorted.