I've been reading up on hate speech, the hate speech index, and the ADL. Just curious what hate speech means to members here. To me, the term "hate speech" sounds like a euphemism for opposing ideology, but I would be interested in hearing what others think of the term "hate speech". What does it mean to you?
Hate speech
- Thread starter Evmetro
- Start date
"Hate speech
Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Wikipedia"
Hey, I did you a solid, I looked it up myself.
Like ... If I called 'legion' a "Retard", that would be considered 'Hate Speech' because of his mental disability. Or, ... let's say I called 'Havana Loon' a 'Fag' because of his infatuation with Scott Pruitt, that would be 'Hate Speech'. Now ... these are just examples, I would never engage in Hate Speech myself. It's just something I never engage in.
Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Wikipedia"
Hey, I did you a solid, I looked it up myself.
Like ... If I called 'legion' a "Retard", that would be considered 'Hate Speech' because of his mental disability. Or, ... let's say I called 'Havana Loon' a 'Fag' because of his infatuation with Scott Pruitt, that would be 'Hate Speech'. Now ... these are just examples, I would never engage in Hate Speech myself. It's just something I never engage in.
You may be more correct in this than you think...
...and you may be more correct in this than I want you to be.
Okay...often...VERY OFTEN...VERY, VERY OFTEN...
...stuff called "hate speech" is called that because it advocates for an opposing ideology.
As I indicated in the opening post, I have already been reading up on it. From what I can tell, there seems to be a new weaponized context that is hidden behind the real context of the term. Most people on either side of the aisle would likely feel an altruistic desire to fight hateful anything, and it sounds like this is what the weaponized context is wanting to exploit.
I think it is a mechanism for the PC Fascists to control 'Thought'. The PC Fascists and their 'Thought Police' want to control 'Speech'. ... just my opinion.
Controlled Opposition
Note my apathy
Ironically, the chief tactic of the Anti-Defamation League is defamation.
I think that the intent of the weaponized political context is that people do what you have done here, and have been satisfied with what wiki says. Most of us really do reject something as ugly as hate, but it can get complicated if somebody mislabeled an act or article as hateful. In a polarized political environment, almost anything our political opponents have to say can sound like hate speech. Exploitation of this term can be a double edged sword that can cut both sides of the aisle, so both sides of the aisle should be concerned about allowing it to be weapon iced this way.
Here is what the ADL site says about free speech
https://www.adl.org/what-we-do/discrimination/free-speech
When I google "ADL Hate speech censorship", the results I get seem to be in conflict with what their site says.
I have no problem with 'Hate Speech', it's a form of speech. In my view, it diminishes the main gist of whatever your argument is.
Take 'guno'. I support this person's viewpoint, but abhor his Hateful approach to dealing with others. Even his avatar is disgusting. (I prefer to think of this person as Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam)
It sounds like your perception of hate speech is the traditional context. Are you also able to conceive the weaponized political context that exploits this traditional one?
Irish Exit
Verified User
I defend freedom of speech even if the speech makes me cringe all the way to my very soul. About the only speech I won't defend would be advocacy by pedos and rapists and other heinous victimizers.
While I won't defend the ideas of such speech I do defend its constitutionality. A person is free to advocate anything they choose including violent overthrow of the U. S. government. They just cannot act on such beliefs.
If I understand your use of "weaponized" it is prohibiting speech because it is found to be hate or offensive. This danger primarily exists on the campus of private colleges because they are not restricted by 1st Amendment freedoms. When used by public colleges it has often been found unconstitutional through lawsuits filed by FIRE or similar groups.
I don’t believe people should be jailed by the government for their expression, but I personally do not support speech that is racists, homophobic, etc. You will lose my friendship, my support and my money if you do so. You are free to speak, but there can be consequences for that speech, like on this forum, I put you on ignore. I won’t be bothered cluttering my mind with it.
I like this, and feel the same way. I think the problem comes in when entities become the authority in judging what hate speech is. If tech companies become large enough to monopolize how the country perceives the political landscape, then they should not be allowed to assert what hate speech is AND be allowed to silence it. You and I should be free to decide for ourselves, and we can navigate around what we don't like, just like you use the ignore feature.
My view is that the so-called 'Hate Speech' is a political device instituted by the PC Fascists to LIMIT free speech. I have NO PROBLEM with people hating each other and expressing it.
I didn't read your link so may not understand your term 'weaponized'. The terms 'Racist', 'Bigot', 'Anti-Semite' are so over used they become meaningless words.
Fentoine lum has coined a word I like "Partisanshitheads". It expresses the Red Team/Blue Team mentality that is prevalent here.
Irish Exit
Verified User
Not sure putting people on ignore is wise for a moderator.
It works well for me. Rules violations are most always reported and I take people off of ignore to view offensive posts. I will also do do for heated dialogues or touchy topics. The owner allows it.