Julien Blanc: UK 'denies visa to pick-up artist'

[danny la rouge]

Fuck him.Cunt.

It's not about him.

 

[telbert]

My opinion is.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Is there grounds for not letting him in on the grounds that he icites criminal behaviour?

 

[gentlegreen]

Russell Brand had to distance himself - having been cynically nabbed for a photo op - but I thought his comments were a bit weak - but he was presumably trying to avoid accusations of slander.

 

[sim667]

You've entirely missed the point. I haven't even mentioned registering dissatisfaction with the current govt, I've simply not been talking about any such thing. I've been talking about other ways of opposing the growth of this culture than via Theresa may.

I don't think this is the best of examples in which to make this point.

 

[DotCommunist]

The yanks won't let anyone in who's ever been caught smoking a spliff ...

if you admit to it on a visa that nobody ever checks. However if you are howard marks about to embark on a 'weed is brilliant' tour in states where it is not yet even medically allowed then you might find your application for visa examined more closely.

 

[el-ahrairah]

teresa may already has the power to exclude whoever she likes. with or without our consent. why should i be bothered with her exercising that power against people i don't like. and she uses it. so we're not breaking new ground here. all that stuff danny went on about is already here. its not new. petitioning right wing governments to use powers that are objectionable in our favour is surely jsut a tool, like voting. it's not the end game, it's just part of it. anyway, as far as i'm concerned freedom of expression is only for people that don't abuse it. i'd quite happily take it away from a lot of people.

i mean, if we were advocating new powers to deal with this guy that could then be used against us, it would be fair to say that would be stupid. but she's using existing powers. its not new ground is it?

 

[DotCommunist]

which is why I was looking for a full list and the why's el-ahrairah

all the ones they are keen to have know as banned seem to be of dodgy affiliations re: terrorism, but I can't find a decent actual list

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think this is the best of examples in which to make this point.

I think it is. It is precisely someone you yourself find objectionable that is the best example to make the point - ie the point is a strong one, and even applies to wankers like this.

 

[el-ahrairah]

and it is power that could be used against people we like. the biggest worry as i see it, is that by petitioning them to keep out pricks like this and celebrating this one, we legitimise the use of that power as a crowd-pleaser.

 

[el-ahrairah]

but you know what, fuck him. i don't believe in free speech anyway. if people can't be nice, then they should be silenced.

 

[danny la rouge]

its not new ground is it?

No it isn't; I made the same argument when Dieudonne was excluded, and Geert Wilders.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

but you know what, fuck him. i don't believe in free speech anyway. if people can't be nice, then they should be silenced.

Danny's right, though. It's not about him.

 

[likesfish]

The bloke is a cunt and its a good job too.
The bloke assualts women as his trick
Keeping assorted anti social types out is one of the jobs of goverment

 

[DotCommunist]

The point on 'it could be used on anyone' while valid- well, that ship has long sailed. And I really don't think they'd need obvious wrong uns or terrorist affiliates as a springboard to then block any left of pinochet speaker etc.

the abrogation of our right to provide the no platform, the giving of that to the reigns of power is troublesome yes.

But blairs anti-terror ledge built foundations for it. Diplock built foundations for it.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

but you know what, fuck him. i don't believe in free speech anyway. if people can't be nice, then they should be silenced.

Blanc is a violent sexual predator who encourages other men to be violent sexual predators. He has two options in my opinion: not doing so or get the shit kicked out of him.

There is a tactical question about what the division of labour between the state and non-state actors should be in suppressing his sexual violence advocacy.

There is also principle question about whether he should be able to utter these things at all. Anybody who thinks in principle that he should be allowed to utter these things is nothing short of rape apologist imo.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No it isn't; I made the same argument when Dieudonne was excluded, and Geert Wilders.

TBF, Wilders should have been excluded from the UK purely on the basis of his first name - it's too near to "git" for most people to resist!

 

[el-ahrairah]

Danny's right, though. It's not about him.

i get it, you don't think the government should have the power to exclude people.

i do, if they're pricks. i think i should get to decide. or at least someone sensible. i'm sad that any of the political classes get to decide. they're pricks who shouldn't be trusted. most of them i'd have chucked off beachy head.

but when some bloke who wants to teach blokes tat sexual assault is ok is excluded, well, i'm not going to cry about it.

the entire system needs rebuilding. if it gets it right, even for the wrong reasons, i'm not going to campaign for them to overturn this decision when its against my interests for me to do so. my critical support for this is not de facto support for the system!

 

[ViolentPanda]

and it is power that could be used against people we like. the biggest worry as i see it, is that by petitioning them to keep out pricks like this and celebrating this one, we legitimise the use of that power as a crowd-pleaser.

That's the problem with any precedent. I was trying to get it through to a poster earlier that if you allow the state to get away with something underhand, it sets a precedent that will be deployed (sooner or later) to justify doing the same underhand thing again.

 

[el-ahrairah]

but they've already done this more than 150 times. the precedent was set a long time ago. should we oppose each and every time even when its against the interests of our communities, just to make a point?

 

[danny la rouge]

but they've already done this more than 150 times. the precedent was set a long time ago. should we oppose each and every time even when its against the interests of our communities, just to make a point?

Because what the state is doing is not in the interest of our communities, even if they say it is.

 

[redsquirrel]

america doesn't let loads of people in it doesn't like the look of and here you all are whining about this manipulative vile waste of a man if you can even call a blatant rapist a man

why does anyone even care?

Because we can see how these measures types of measures have been used, and will be used again, against others. Including people that many of us would consider comrades. DLR's post explains it better, but we, not the government should decide how to respond to this creep.

There is also principle question about whether he should be able to utter these things at all. Anybody who thinks in principle that he should be allowed to utter these things is nothing short of rape apologist imo.

What do you mean by allowed? Legally allowed? I want us a community make these type pricks excluded in the same way that ideological racists are. That's not the same as the state imposing some sort of no platform policy. Indeed I'd argue that those types of actions of the state actually hinder the response I want to see.

 

[butchersapron]

Is Balotelli's pig still denied entry?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

What do you mean by allowed? Legally allowed? I want us a community make these type pricks excluded in the same way that ideological racists are. That's not the same as the state imposing some sort of no platform policy. Indeed I'd argue that those types of actions of the state actually hinder the response I want to see.

I was leaving the question of the means of repression open. But I disagree with you that he falls into the same category of concern as an 'ideological racist'. To me he's within the category of violent criminality. I don't oppose the repression of violent criminality by the state as a matter of principle.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

but you know what, fuck him. i don't believe in free speech anyway. if people can't be nice, then they should be silenced.

This is always the crux of the matter, though. By whom? Who silences Theresa May, for instance?

 

[comrade spurski]

Yeah, banning is just a kneejerk thing which will serve no purpose apart from garnering even more publicity for his sicko misogyny. Are we all six year olds who have to be protected by the state from pernicious ideology? I like to think that most adults, given enough information, can decide for themselves that some ideas are truly crapulous...and the entire oeuvre of the pick-up artist is nothing more than hateful spite from a small man (with a teeny tiny prick and gigantic need to feel relevant).

so would I...but then again I have read the Ched Evans thread and followed that case in the news and it suggests that there are a shit load of very horrible people with shit ideas around the issues rape and consent.

 

[campanula]

well yes, but then Blanc becomes a martyr - a victim of repression... an outsider, rebel and a hero...for those emasculated men who revel in these hateful attitudes. Instead of a pathetic man preaching poison to others, he is elevated to a person of consequence. Of course there are some disgusting people who need educating...but any chance of protesting against his vile creed has been removed from us, the public, and placed in the hands of politicians who have zero credibility...a decision which has the potential of propagating this hate ideology far beyond his normal audience...
I do think the issues of freedom of expression are complex and I admit to being somewhat naive, but Blanc has now acghieved a sort of infamy which will, I think, backfire badly if the original intention was to stifle this man's influence.

 

[Orang Utan]

It's like urban. Don't be a dick.
He's a dick. Byeee.

 

[xenon]

Welcome to philosophy club.

 

[xenon]

It's not about him.

It is. Philosophy club is having tea.