-->
@Greyparrot
Those are some serious bars.... must be from the fetal alcohol syndrome :P
If hate speech is banned
Posts
Total:
64
-->
@bmdrocks21
Not sure where the confusion is coming from. You say "hate speech" is speech that leads to violence against people. I'm asking if an idea has historically lead to death and starvation, should it also be banned from advocacy, or do you put an arbitrary rule of "might cause violence" on speech?
My description of what qualifies as hate speech was a response to the OP, not an all encompassing definition to be held to. I think the context of the discussion should have made that clear.
This is a debate site, if you’re looking for a definition I’m sure google would be a much better option.
Are stupid ideas that lead to mass starvation 100% of the time also banned? Or is that fine?
No. We’re not talking about ideas we’re talking about speech, particularly speech directed towards a certain group.
-->
@Double_R
I think it might be helpful to illustrate that there is a difference between speech which is rhetorical, which are simply ideas, and which are legitimately harmful - there are differences.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Do you agree that Government using force to ban things is a form of violence?
-->
@Greyparrot
I suppose. Violence is neither a good nor a bad thing. It is good to use violence to ban murder.
Government is said to generally have a “monopoly on violence”
-->
@bmdrocks21
Right, so then you can't justify all hate speech to be "bad" because it incites violence since some forms of violence are "good."
In order to protect things, you need to be willing to use violence to hurt the aggressor. Stand your ground laws are based on this kind of beneficial violence.
It's entirely possible an aggressor labels anything stopping him as "hate speech" simply as a means of removing barriers against his aggression.
The prime incentive of censorship is to have a monopoly on aggression.
-->
@bmdrocks21
The government and their supporting powerful lobbies have an interest in preserving their status quo power to label any speech or idea that challenges their power as hateful and criminal, which is the entire reason why we have a 1st amendment.
This OP is actually pretty disgusting, since it's not satire but genuinely meant.
You are comparing KKK and Nazis, who literally beat, shoot, lynch and/or gas their victims to death, to a movement that is intended to help avoid a series of unwanted, neglected children overpopulating an already extremely exchausted foster care system. That doesn't even begin to mention cases of rape or situations where a breadwinning spouse suddenly has ditched their newly pregnant spouse.
I mean this whole fucking OP is plain stupid but the comparison of Nazis and the KKK to pro-choicers and then comparing ACTIONS to SPEECH, is like a double-layered 'wtf'?
We should legalize being pro life, we should legalize being pro choice, and we should legalize being in the KKK.
Just, WHAT the FUCK kind of jump is that?
WHAT the FUCK?!
The KKK's ideology and actions both are absolutely 100% violent and toxic; merciless to the highest degree.
You have no idea what you are even talking about, just stop typing.
-->
@David
@Barney
Please read this thread properly. What we have is a non-satirical comparison of anti-oppression groups being able to express their ideals compared to groups that both act and speak with absolute malice and hatred for races and creeds other than their own.
This thread, if it doesn't violate the Code of Conduct, is objective proof that the CoC needs a better policy.
I am unable to report because you took away my ability to flag posts. I am publicly asking you to come to this thread and state your official position on it. This is deeply disgusting, it's not even trolling and it's not funny. Alec is literally, uncomedically and with serious intent comparing BLM to the very group who have, in their pussy-ass disguises, terrorised and ensured remaining oppression hit the black people and frankly anyone who has stood in the KKK's way. Neo-Nazis are not just using 'freedom of speech' they are actively rioting in the White House itself, we are talking about people who would gun down the actual government in the name of their racist agenda if you let them convince enough people it was okay.
I do not give the slightest bit of a damn if this is me being a SJW cancel culture libtard. I am proud to be. This is wrong, it needs to be taken down. I don't find it funny and there are dead black people, impoverished mothers and fathers who can barely bring their children food on the table, let alone a decent education between each child having a part-time job just to make ends meet and much more, thanks to KKK, Nazis and anti-abortion laws, who are not and if they are alive, would not be happy about this shit at all.
It's not funny, it's 0% positive and if this is what the first amendment is about then I think the first amendment needs 'amending'.
I think RM's reaction here proves the point being made: the lines drawn with what speech should be banned as hate speech are emotionally driven and not based on any sort of objective criteria. Most people would not object to discussing whether hate speech should be banned altogether, but RM wants to prevent the discussion from even happening. The government would be like RM, listening to the vocal minority on these issues and shutting down crucial discussions before they can even happen.
Do we really want the government's majority party to define what speech is/isn't acceptable? When has that ever worked out favorably in history?
There was a time when the majority in our government supported slavery. This could be the case again.
What if you're a Democrat? Well, while Republicans don't typically cancel you currently, what if that changes? Do you want to have your speech outlawed because of some unforeseen religious revival that condemns homosexuality?
If you're a Republican, you're being told currently that speaking out against your perceived murder of children makes you a woman-hater. This should be an obvious example of a discussion that needs to happen but could be shut down.
-->
@Greyparrot
The government and their supporting powerful lobbies have an interest in preserving their status quo power to label any speech or idea that challenges their power as hateful and criminal, which is the entire reason why we have a 1st amendment.
"Gulf Tonkin was a false flag."
Who's knocking at the door?
AhhhERGSdfsfdsGFGS
-->
@Double_R
No. We’re not talking about ideas we’re talking about speech, particularly speech directed towards a certain group.
Ok, I see. Speech that supports ideas that will lead to the starvation of millions is fine to you. It is all about an arbitrary "directed towards a certain group." Indiscriminate starvation FTW!
-->
@bmdrocks21
Do you know what Nazism will have done to people? Don't think for one moment you have a high horse to sit on.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ok, I see. Speech that supports ideas that will lead to the starvation of millions is fine to you.
What an absurd strawman.
I made no comment on how I felt about ideas that lead to starvation because it is not relevant to this thread nor to any point I have made.
I was pointing to your error - conflating the banning of speech with the banning of ideas. You can think about bombs all you want while sitting on a plane, that is not the same thing as yelling “bomb!”.
What is your issue with fighting back against hate speech? Perhaps we should start there.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ok, I see. Speech that supports ideas that will lead to the starvation of millions is fine to you. It is all about an arbitrary "directed towards a certain group." Indiscriminate starvation FTW!
Nazism blah blah blah.....
Lol, Godwin's Law is strong in that one.
-->
@Double_R
Passing a hate speech law: the group in power gets to determine what "hate speech" is.
It blatantly violates the First Amendment, which has pretty much been universally agreed upon by the Supreme Court Justices.
The implementation abroad speaks for itself when people are arrested for making jokes on the internet or fined for "misgendering" people lol.
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, Godwin's Law is strong in that one.
I don't know why a 1930-40s German political movement is so relevant that it must be brought up in literally every political discussion.
You don't believe in jailing people for espousing non-mainstream opinions? nAzI>!!1?!!?/
-->
@bmdrocks21
It's like the only people to be afraid of on the alt-right are the less than 1000 KKK members in America!
I had no idea the violent alt-right wing was so small!
-->
@Greyparrot
The rest are in the closet about affiliating with KKK or go by names like proud boys
Proud Boys are about as violent as the Q-Anon Shaman.
***
I've been asked to formally review this thread...
The worst this thread could be accused of being is a defense of others having the right to make calls to violence, while not being such a call in it of itself.
Actual calls to commit or threaten violence are prohibited by the CoC, mere discussion of the limits to free speech are not.
-Ragnar, DM
***
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, I have to say: despite there being an "epidemic" of White Supremacist violence, I have seen a rather surprising lack of burning crosses and Swastika graffiti (that doesn't turn out to be a fake hate crime)
-->
@bmdrocks21
It blatantly violates the First Amendment, which has pretty much been universally agreed upon by the Supreme Court Justices.
The first amendment has been widely acknowledged to be no defense against language that harms others. That’s why you cannot threaten someone or why you can be sued for libel. Hate speech is not much different, in this case it’s not the idea of banning it that is problematic but its improper application. What I don’t understand is why then do you spend your energy attacking the former rather than the latter?
-->
@oromagi
I agree with your assertion that liberals support free speech ideologically, but I disagree that the party that has historically been considered "liberal" supports free speech, at least to the degree that Republicans do. Free speech, at least until recently, seemed to be more of a bi-partisan thing. Republicans maybe supported it because it was in the Constitution, Democrats supporting it maybe because of ideology or some other reason.
Here is a Yougov poll between parties about their support for criminalizing hate speech, showing that Democrats are the only group that has over 50% support for such a law.
Hard to find any other polls on the matter (as I usually like to provide multiple sources) but feel free to show one that contradicts mine.
Also, as for your comment about liberals being more willing to be friends with conservatives than the other way around (it may be true for you), it seems the opposite is true, generally, according to a 2017 Cato poll:
Of Clinton voters, 61% said it is hard to be friends with Trump voters, while 38% said it is not hard. On the other hand, for Trump voters, 34% said it is hard to be with Clinton voters, while 64% said it wasn't hard.
Here is another article, from the Independent, that shows the same pattern. More Democrats say it will put a strain on a friendship if a friend voted for Trump than Republicans said it would if a friend voted for Hillary. (They cite Pew Research)
So I think that Alec is making the mistake of conflating Democrats with people who possess a liberal ideology.
-->
@Double_R
The first amendment has been widely acknowledged to be no defense against language that harms others. That’s why you cannot threaten someone or why you can be sued for libel. Hate speech is not much different, in this case it’s not the idea of banning it that is problematic but its improper application. What I don’t understand is why then do you spend your energy attacking the former rather than the latter?
Laws determine two things: criminal action and criminal intent. These laws are incoherent because you cannot prove the intention of someone if they merely mention something negative about a group.
Perhaps provide a couple examples of things you would determine to be hate speech to give me a better idea of what exactly you want to ban.
-->
@Double_R
That’s why you cannot threaten someone
The government threatens people all the time and it's not criminal.
why you can be sued for libel.
Proof speech is a civil matter, not a criminal one.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Perhaps provide a couple examples of things you would determine to be hate speech to give me a better idea of what exactly you want to ban.
My personal take is not to criminalize hate speech directly but to make it so that one can be held accountable for the actualized impacts of their speech of it meets the criteria. Trump and Jan 6th comes to mind, although that would be different from hate speech and a tougher case criminally than politically.
I’m not really advocating here, for all I know it may already be law. I’m just wondering what the issue is that has people up in arms and responding to arguments I don’t find have any merit.
-->
@Greyparrot
That’s why you cannot threaten someoneThe government threatens people all the time and it's not criminal.
You really do see the government as a person huh?