Bad Dog...

[Lord Jim]

No, actually stupid Scot:

Nazi pug: Man arrested after teaching girlfriend's dog to perform Hitler salute as a 'prank'



A Scottish man who provoked outrage after filming his girlfriend's dog responding to Nazi slogans has been arrested by Lanarkshire police.

Earlier this year Markus Meechan uploaded a video of the dog, a pug named Buddah, responding to the phrase "gas the Jews," raising its paw in an imitation Nazi salute when it heard the words "Sieg Heil", and viewing footage of Hitler giving a speech.

In the Youtube clip, titled M8 Yer Dugs A Nazi, Meechan says: "My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute her dog is so I thought I would turn her into the least cute thing you could think of which is a Nazi."

When the video was first uploaded last month Meechan denied being racist, and insisted he'd made the video solely to annoy his girlfriend, saying: "I am so sorry to the Jewish community for any offence I have caused them. This was never my intention and I apologise."​ ​

He has since declined to comment further

However, a spokeswoman for the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities told the Daily Mirror: "Antisemitism is not something that can in any degree be regarded as a joke.

"It is a form of racism which needs to be condemned just as we would any other form of racism, just as we would condemn Islamophobia or anti-African racism."

Ephraim Borowski, director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities added: "To regard the meticulously planned and industrialised murder of six million people solely on the grounds of their ethnicity as a joke is outrageous, and for someone who does so to claim not to be racist, beggars belief."

It has now emerged that Meechan was arrested on April 28 at his house in Coatbridge, Lanarkshire. He was subsequently released pending further investigations.

Detective Inspector David Cockburn of Lanarkshire CID said: “This clip was shared online and has been viewed almost one million times.

“I would ask anyone who has had the misfortune to have viewed it to think about the pain and hurt the narrative has caused a minority of people in our community.

“The clip is deeply offensive and no reasonable person can possibly find the content acceptable in today’s society.

“This arrest should serve as a warning to anyone posting such material online, or in any other capacity, that such views will not be tolerated.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05 ... o-perform/

For anyone who's concerned that their life may be two minutes and 24 seconds too long, and they'd just like to throw that time away, here's the video:



It's tasteless, juvenile and repetitive, but it certainly doesn't rise to the level even of serious racist propaganda.

Let me begin by stipulating that this guy is an idiot. Just by looking at him:



it's readily apparent Mr. Meechan won't be taking a trip to Oslo to collect a Nobel Prize in Physics any time soon...

It's amazing to me that he was actually able to teach the dog how to do anything...I would think the dog would hold a clear IQ advantage between the two of them...

But that having been said, I find this kind of thinking:

“This arrest should serve as a warning to anyone posting such material online, or in any other capacity, that such views will not be tolerated.”

Far more disturbing and dangerous then that moronic video...

Thankfully, this would not happen in the US. (At least until President Trump gets his new libel and slander laws passed.) I don't want The State making determinations about what "views" will and will not "be tolerated". It's not a business I want the government to be in.

Even if they're stupid, ignorant, and/or racist views.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It's just mind over matter. (Ve don't mind and you don't matter)

Edit: right you are, LJ - he looks like a total plonker

[rubato]

Victor Borge's nazi joke:


Q: What is the difference between a Nazi and a dog?

A: When the Nazi salutes he raises his hand.

yrs,
rubato

[MGMcAnick]

A friend of mine has a large brown mixed breed dog that he has taught to "wave good-bye". His wave looks a lot like that pug's stupid salute, although he waves better. I guess it's all in the interpretation, or the spoken command given prior to the dog's action. If the jerk in the recording had said "wave" before the dog did its thing, everyone would think it was cute. I'd guess his other command probably means "it's time to eat" to the pug.

[RayThom]

I'm thinking "ink poisoning."

[Lord Jim]

I'd guess his other command probably means "it's time to eat" to the pug.

Or, "puppy want to go walkies?"...

In my experience the prospect of a treat, or "going bye-bye" (either for a walk or a ride in the car) are the two suggestions most likely to rouse a pooch from hang-out and chill mode...

[Sue U]

“This arrest should serve as a warning to anyone posting such material online, or in any other capacity, that such views will not be tolerated.”

I think someone has lost sight of who's the Nazi in this episode.

I did not find the video "deeply offensive" nor did it cause me any "pain and hurt." I actually thought the concept of a "Nazi pug" who watches films of Hitler and salutes when you say "sieg heil" was funny, if tasteless; the execution and editing could have been better, but hey, it's YouTube, not Dave Chapelle. And speaking of Chapelle (and more than a few others), if "tasteless" is any kind of disqualifier for humor, then you're missing some really funny comedy.

In any event, one of the proper responses to Nazis in any context is to laugh at them.

[rubato]

If, after hearing my songs, just one human being is inspired to say something nasty to a friend or, perhaps to strike a loved one, it will all have been worth the while. Tom Lehrer
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... ehrer.html

[Lord Jim]

This guy ain't no Tom Lehrer...(or Dave Chapelle)

He's just an ignorant, juvenile jackass who's turned his face and body into a pin cushion...(BTW, if you look closely he's got a hammer and sickle symbol inside a red star tattoo, so he's not a Nazi he's a Communist... )

But even side show freaks have the right to free expression...(I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that apparently this guy actually has a girlfriend...must be Lydia The Tattoed Lady...)


But if the right to free speech does not exist for the most moronic among us, it exists for none of us...

[Sue U]

(BTW, if you look closely he's got a hammer and cycle symbol inside a red star tattoo, so he's not a Nazi he's a Communist... )

A hammer and cycle? Is that some kind of collectivist biker thing?

[Lord Jim]

Fixed.

I confess I don't have occasion to write the word "sickle" very often...

Here's a flag for you Sue:

[Big RR]

But if the right to free speech does not exist for the most moronic among us, it exists for none of us...

Absolutely.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well, not really. One could posit a right to free speech applicable only to the non-moronic. Some sort of IQ test would establish the parameters. I'd be safe but I'm not so sure about a few others....

[Scooter]

What some may see as protected speech, others may justifiably see as incitement to violence. I am not going to be losing any sleep that this jackass was arrested for what he was saying, nor do I see his arrest as any sort of a slippery slope towards a totalitarian state.

[Lord Jim]

What some may see as protected speech, others may justifiably see as incitement to violence.

An incitement to violence? Did you watch the video? It's an incitement to boredom...

I seriously doubt that there's anyone out there who viewed this and concluded, "This face pierced, tattoo covered buffoon who has taught his dog to jump off a couch when he says 'gas the Jews' has really incited me. Based on this I think I'll go out and fire bomb a Jewish Temple..."

I just don't see that happening...

In order to protect free speech, (even odious and offensive speech) "incitement to violence" in this country has been, (and properly should be) defined very narrowly....

There needs to be a proximate relationship between the speech and the potential for violence, (For example a guy leading a mob who sees the object of the mob's anger and yells, "Let's string him up!")

This doesn't even come remotely close to meeting any legal definition of "incitement to violence" (at least not under US law.)

ETA:

Well, not really. One could posit a right to free speech applicable only to the non-moronic. Some sort of IQ test would establish the parameters.

I couldn't go along with that...

I enjoy reading rube's posts...

[Big RR]

I agree with Jim, I see no incitement to violence here, only a stupid video. And Scooter, while you are losing no sleep about this guys arrest, I do see serious problems when a government can outlaw speech based upon content alone. The speech is unpopular to be sure, and may even be infuriating to some, but I see tolerance of it one of the prices we pay to live in a free society.

[Scooter]

And that's great, it takes all kinds to make a world. I don't happen to see "joking" about promoting genocide as any more worthy of protection than a "joke" about a bomb threat or a "joke" about carrying a gun at airport security, and try as hard as I might, I am incapable of seeing how not considering such speech as worthy of protection will put us on the path to a police state.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Scooter (I think) has considered the ramifications more carefully than LJ and Big RR. Crying 'Fire!' in a crowded theater is an exercise of free speech but is also forbidden because of the effect of that free speech. Obviously, our two colleagues will agree with that. Scooter is (I think) concerned about a link between hate speech (as defined), the effects of incitement speech and rather obvious (it seems to me) corollary that if I am permitted to say a thing then I am surely permitted (in some sense) to put that belief into practice. He is, one imagines, sensitive to the negative implications of that kind of notion.

Obviously no one is going to argue with any success that "I like to kill people" as speech implies any kind of right to actually kill people. Clearly it does not. But I sense a kind of linkage between speech and action that requires, at least from one perspective, keeping a very close (legal) eye on the speech. OTOH, there's dangerously slippery ground hidden not at all deeply beneath claims that "how some people feel about that" is at all a reliable measure against which to restrict speech.

I've not explained that at all well - and perhaps Scooter has no such thought in mind. The issue here is not "disagreeing with what is said but defending the right to say it" - "disagreement" is far too weak a word for incitement, racial baiting and recommendations for ethnic cleansing.

[Bicycle Bill]

Well, not really. One could posit a right to free speech applicable only to the non-moronic. Some sort of IQ test would establish the parameters.

I couldn't go along with that...

I enjoy reading rube's posts...

You insinuate that rubato isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.  Neither is wesw.
However, you find one of the two to be entertaining, while you have the other one on 'ignore'.  That is not logical, since wesw is demonstrably the better clown.

-"BB"-

[wesw]

thank you, BB!

but try to be a clown, it s different....