• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -51 year ago

    And what is hate speech? When we start telling people what is and is not allowable to say, we set a highly dangerous precedent and move the game from black and white lines into shades of gray. Another shade darker is far easier to slip into than black from white.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      Oh cool! Muddy waters!

      I’ll just go ahead and stick this filter in here.

      Hate speech: abusive or threatening speech or writing used to express prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.

      Pretty simple, you don’t get to threaten, scare or abuse people with your words. That infringes on their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      Shall we of course discuss the one grey area “or similar grounds” or was there another direction you’d like to take this?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -31 year ago

        lol No, I’ll take it another direction (mostly).

        The definition you gave is already broad enough that I do not have to appeal to the “or similar grounds.” I, personally, find it dishonest to call another by their preferred pronouns (I perceive that they are not the sex they wish me to refer to them as, therefore to deny my perception would be to lie. Their preferences or gender do not change that.) Under your definition, that would likely be called hate speech; but I am not trying to hate anyone. I don’t think they should be treated differently from others, nor am I trying to make them feel unloved or hated in any way; rather, I am simply trying to be honest about what I see.

        Here’s another example: Say I conduct a study that compares the IQ of different ethnicities within a country. If I get results that slant one direction or another, publishing such a study might be deemed hate speech.

        Here’s another from the post we are talking about: On the second panel, you see the hateful man holding a book with a cross on it and saying that LGBT people in the background are affronts to God. Later, he is seen become an obvious totalitarian authority of some sort. A Christian might find such a comparison offensive. They may truly believe that homosexuality is wrong because that is what their religion teaches. Would preaching that topic become hate speech? Would preaching that RELIGION be considered hate speech?

        A good rule of thumb I found is this: When advocating for any increase in power, especially in government, imagine that power in the hands of your worst enemy. Would you still want it to be used? I wouldn’t.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          I’ve read enough you’re a douche and you refuse to accept reality because you think your perception is law.

          Purposefully and knowingly causing someone true anguish and denying them of their identity is next to nazi shit imo. You’re a sack of human waste and no amount of water muddying you can possibly produce will stop us from identifying and calling people like you out.

          Your perception of reality is subjective full stop. It is not objective. Therefor by stomping on others subjectives with your own you imply superiority.

          Rot.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Hold up. The above comment called for literal violence, and I’m the one who gets this level of hate? I truly do not understand.

            I agree that my perception is subjective, but since I don’t have any other that I can experience, I rely on my own first and foremost when mine conflicts with someone else’s. That seems logical to me.

            EDIT: Hold up x2. “Causing them true anguish?” “Denying them of their identity?” WTF? How is that what I am doing? I think we’re losing perspective on what true anguish actually looks like here.

        • Kras Mazov
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I, personally, find it dishonest to call another by their preferred pronouns (I perceive that they are not the sex they wish me to refer to them as, therefore to deny my perception would be to lie.

          Oh wow, who would have guessed that a free speech absolutist is a transphobe? Shocking!!!

          but I am not trying to hate anyone. I don’t think they should be treated differently from others, nor am I trying to make them feel unloved or hated in any way; rather, I am simply trying to be honest about what I see.

          By denying them their gender you are denying their identity, hating them and treating them differently just because they are trans/nb and making them feel unwelcomed, unloved and hated, something you doesn’t do to cis people.

          And all that is assuming you can even “tell” when someone is trans.

          You’re not being honest, you’re being a self-centered bigot that clearly doesnt understand gender, neither trans nor non-binary people.

          Here’s another example: Say I conduct a study that compares the IQ of different ethnicities within a country. If I get results that slant one direction or another, publishing such a study might be deemed hate speech.

          Ugh, here we go.

          IQ is only ONE measure of skill/“inteligence” that is very limited and doesn’t mean much.

          Also your example just shows you wouldn’t understand the meaning of the results of such study. If the data represent that a given ethnicity got lower scores that’s only the start of the study, you then have to go deeper to understand why. Is it because they are “less inteligent”, or is it because they are a marginalized group that receive less and poorer education? Is their education on par with the other tested ethnicity? How do another group of the same ethnicity on another conditions/country/whatever fare in the study? Etc, etc, etc.

          This have already been done and research suggests the difference encountered is directly correlated with the environment differences, that is, the material conditions of the different groups of people tested.

          On the second panel, you see the hateful man holding a book with a cross on it and saying that LGBT people in the background are affronts to God. Later, he is seen become an obvious totalitarian authority of some sort. A Christian might find such a comparison offensive.

          So what? Atrocities have been commited in the name of their religion throughout history, why should we care if the christian find it “offensive” that they are depicted in the wrong for the wrong thst they are still doing? They literally brought this upon themselves by allowing this hateful anti-LGBT behavior to still exist within them.

          They may truly believe that homosexuality is wrong because that is what their religion teaches.

          Then they need to adapt to the times and start seeing LGBT as people like we are. Or they can go fuck themselves. One side is just trying to exist, the other is spewing hateful views and lies about them. There is no space for intolerance in society.

          Would preaching that topic become hate speech? Would preaching that RELIGION be considered hate speech?

          Yes. Either change your views and adapt or fuck off. If they don’t respect people they should not expect to be respected, no matter how much they convinced themselves they are right.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Hmm… Can’t tell if you’re agreeing or sarcastically and incorrectly pointing out a logical fallacy. If you agree, cool. If not:

        The Slippery Slope fallacy is only a fallacy if one posits that the future events MUST happen as a result, not that they are likely to. If I take a step further down a literal slippery slope, I am more likely to fall but not guaranteed. If you start using hardcore drugs, you are likely to get addicted and lose a lot of money but again, not guaranteed.

        That this would set a dangerous precedent is not a slippery slope argument in the slightest. Courts frequently have to bear in mind the legal precedent of their actions because once you do something, its easier the next time. That is fact, not conjecture. It is easier to ratchet down on a freedom that is already jeopardized. No conjecture involved there. No slippery slopes involved. If we allow some speech to be censored, it becomes easier to censor other types of speech.