dust1n
Zindīq
I mean... really? We need more hate speech? Would you like me to speak hatefully towards you?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should Hate Speech be Given a Venue?
- Thread starter ShivaFan
- Start date
I mean... really? We need more hate speech? Would you like me to speak hatefully towards you?
The protesting students?
You mean the bully students who have betrayed the campus free speech movement of the 60's?
They don't believe in freedom of speech and they are fascists.
And they believe in segregation. Safe spaces is segregation, and the zones are not safe but the rally points of bullies who physically abuse others. Other students.
Where were the other students? They exist, they are intimidated or harassed, and threatened with bad grades if they don't acquiesce to false narratives. And they are being attacked for their skin color, be it "white" or Asian-American. Who are now told they no longer have freedom of speech.
These "protestors" are exactly the opposite of the 1960s free speech movement - they are instead bully fascists, and are not reacting to school administrators "lack of action", these same administrators are spun from the same cloth as they are. In fact, the same administrators are giving them orders to do this, or not get a good grade.
They are reacting to allowing any other free media, free speech, against freedom itself. And of course, to show how they deserve the good grade for being good fascists.
They are thugs, thug wanna' be's in their military training for thuggery. They are not learning, they are engaging in mock military exercises. They are turning a campus into a type of military academy.
They are the enemy of diversity.
And they are the minority, not the majority. And so they are bullies against other students who are not them but are more qualified than them to be a student academically and mentally and in maturity.
You mean the bully students who have betrayed the campus free speech movement of the 60's?
They don't believe in freedom of speech and they are fascists.
And they believe in segregation. Safe spaces is segregation, and the zones are not safe but the rally points of bullies who physically abuse others. Other students.
Where were the other students? They exist, they are intimidated or harassed, and threatened with bad grades if they don't acquiesce to false narratives. And they are being attacked for their skin color, be it "white" or Asian-American. Who are now told they no longer have freedom of speech.
These "protestors" are exactly the opposite of the 1960s free speech movement - they are instead bully fascists, and are not reacting to school administrators "lack of action", these same administrators are spun from the same cloth as they are. In fact, the same administrators are giving them orders to do this, or not get a good grade.
They are reacting to allowing any other free media, free speech, against freedom itself. And of course, to show how they deserve the good grade for being good fascists.
They are thugs, thug wanna' be's in their military training for thuggery. They are not learning, they are engaging in mock military exercises. They are turning a campus into a type of military academy.
They are the enemy of diversity.
And they are the minority, not the majority. And so they are bullies against other students who are not them but are more qualified than them to be a student academically and mentally and in maturity.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
It boggles the mind that you're supporting continued cultural appropriation in the name of 'free speech'. If the swastika is ever going to be reclaimed from the corruption of Nazism then we need to stop it being used in relation to white supremacism or other racist movements.
The swastika is being used as a tool to now build false narratives where these bully fascists we now see on campus want to limit our freedoms. It is a bogie-man, a non-issue, most are fakes, and the insult is to abuse a Hindu symbol in this manner to create phony media events to promote turning a campus into a PC military academy.
Define hate speech?
Hate speech now means you cannot say blacks can be racists.
Hate speech now means you cannot say Islamists can be genocidal and homophobes and anti-women, and terrorists, and racists, and Islamo-fascists.
Fundamentally, defining hate speech means you can no longer define racism unless you say you are defined as a racist by your skin color (i.e. white, but a black racist and anti-semite is never a racist).
Hate speech means allowing freedom of speech. Where it is hateful to allow freedom.
But I think all speech is now under attack by hate speech about hate speech where another's hate speech is being suppressed by hate speech.. It is like putting a higher value on "security" over freedom.
We need to define freedom. Turn hate speech on it's head, because defining hate speech into a box is part of the agenda of obscuring freedom.
Do not cooperate with the hate speech agenda. Purposely be non-cooperative with the campus military academies of political correctness.
Here is an exact quote from a religious minority (Hindus, for example are victims and targets while other religions such as Muslims are praised as heroes by the same lefti wing fascists) who is being bullied by those who use "hate speech" as a code word for suppressing others, and responded to the so-called "safe zones" and the abusive attack on an Asian-American student for saying blacks can also be racist:
"When I interviewed for grad school, we were a diverse group. I am a religious minority, we had a woman from Taiwan, a guy from Spain, a black man, and a white woman. We all met together in the morning then split off for interviews. At lunchtime we all met together again, but someone from the office came and pulled the black man out. He was gone for 30 minutes, then returned. The Taiwanese woman asked him where he went, and he explained that they had special programs for minorities that they wanted to discuss.
She responded that she was a minority too, and she left the room to go to the office. She returned a couple of minutes later, and said "I guess I'm the wrong minority".
They tell us racism is only white to black, microaggressions are only white to black. It's like we have this tiny little feud going on in America that ignores most of the rest of the world. It's insulting at this point to pretend like the ongoing squabbles between black folks and those with white guilt somehow defines how the world should function."
Define hate speech?
Hate speech now means you cannot say blacks can be racists.
Hate speech now means you cannot say Islamists can be genocidal and homophobes and anti-women, and terrorists, and racists, and Islamo-fascists.
Fundamentally, defining hate speech means you can no longer define racism unless you say you are defined as a racist by your skin color (i.e. white, but a black racist and anti-semite is never a racist).
Hate speech means allowing freedom of speech. Where it is hateful to allow freedom.
But I think all speech is now under attack by hate speech about hate speech where another's hate speech is being suppressed by hate speech.. It is like putting a higher value on "security" over freedom.
We need to define freedom. Turn hate speech on it's head, because defining hate speech into a box is part of the agenda of obscuring freedom.
Do not cooperate with the hate speech agenda. Purposely be non-cooperative with the campus military academies of political correctness.
Here is an exact quote from a religious minority (Hindus, for example are victims and targets while other religions such as Muslims are praised as heroes by the same lefti wing fascists) who is being bullied by those who use "hate speech" as a code word for suppressing others, and responded to the so-called "safe zones" and the abusive attack on an Asian-American student for saying blacks can also be racist:
"When I interviewed for grad school, we were a diverse group. I am a religious minority, we had a woman from Taiwan, a guy from Spain, a black man, and a white woman. We all met together in the morning then split off for interviews. At lunchtime we all met together again, but someone from the office came and pulled the black man out. He was gone for 30 minutes, then returned. The Taiwanese woman asked him where he went, and he explained that they had special programs for minorities that they wanted to discuss.
She responded that she was a minority too, and she left the room to go to the office. She returned a couple of minutes later, and said "I guess I'm the wrong minority".
They tell us racism is only white to black, microaggressions are only white to black. It's like we have this tiny little feud going on in America that ignores most of the rest of the world. It's insulting at this point to pretend like the ongoing squabbles between black folks and those with white guilt somehow defines how the world should function."
It seems hate speech is of enormous value to tyrants, wannabe tyrants, and FOX News. By preventing them from employing hate speech, you almost certainly hamper their attempts to build support for themselves. The only issue I would have with banning it is the question of whether banning it could be done without providing a convenient excuse for banning more legitimate speech under the guise that it's hate speech. Otherwise, I really don't care about the alleged "free speech rights" of tyrants, wannabe tyrants, FOX News hatemongers, and other such malicious and hateful folks. There are legitimate limits that can be imposed on free speech: For instance, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and you can't incite people to violence, and you should not be able to indulge in hate speech either.
It seems to me that your definition of hate speech is of very little substantial use aside from providing you with a soap box to stand on when preaching against it. If your definition were mistaken for more common definitions, it would amount to a straw man.
"In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics. In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both." -- Wikipedia.
I'm not entirely comfortable with the above legal definition of hate speech. Like I said, my concern is that the legal definition might be used to suppress more legitimate speech under the guise it is hate speech. But I do think you can see how the legal definition could be used to shut down or at least seriously hamper tyrants, wannabe tyrants, FOX News hatemongers, and other such malicious and dangerous folks.
I'm not entirely comfortable with the above legal definition of hate speech. Like I said, my concern is that the legal definition might be used to suppress more legitimate speech under the guise it is hate speech. But I do think you can see how the legal definition could be used to shut down or at least seriously hamper tyrants, wannabe tyrants, FOX News hatemongers, and other such malicious and dangerous folks.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Sometimes. It’s also sometimes used by racists and bigots to try to intimidate and threaten minority groups. Sometimes it’s used by idiot vandals who don’t really understand it but don’t have the imagination to create something of their own.
In the context of the thread, you’ll accept my freedom to say that you’re talking out of your ***.
You can say all of these things. They are true after all. You could even say all blacks are racists or all Muslims are terrorists even though those things aren’t true. In either case, other people are also free to speak and act against you (within the law) in response to your words. They can even say things that aren’t true in response to you saying things that are.
I agree with you insofar as I think ShivaFan is in this thread using the AM Radio Shock Jock's very problematic definition of "hate speech", rather than, say, using anything even approaching a legal definition of "hate speech." In doing so, he risks creating a straw man argument since pretty much no one really proposes to enact the AM Radio Shock Jock's def into law.
Actually, more are on "my side" than the despots who are using the so-called "hate speech" agenda to attemp to take away freedom and replace it with a despotic rule.
We know that because look who supports the anti-free speech bullies and the agenda of despotism?
Communists who want a totalitaian government and to stifle free speech and the free press. The far left that wants the same.
What is also exposed here is, the agenda to disallow the free press. The old phony "liberal" news has lost their power. They, along with the far left do not want to allow the new fair and balanced news and wildly popular majority media on cable, the internet and radio to be allowed since the majorjty no longer needs the phony lefttwing news anymore and gets their news from FOX and other outlets. And so, we see the same despotic left try to say the new, majority, popular and watched and listened to, is using "hate speech". We see it right here even in one post.
Meaning, they want to use this lie and agenda to criminalize the free press.
It is as simple as that. And what this despotic minority neeeds to understand is, everyone can now see it and keep up the antics, my numbers grow and the antics don't work anymore.
We know that because look who supports the anti-free speech bullies and the agenda of despotism?
Communists who want a totalitaian government and to stifle free speech and the free press. The far left that wants the same.
What is also exposed here is, the agenda to disallow the free press. The old phony "liberal" news has lost their power. They, along with the far left do not want to allow the new fair and balanced news and wildly popular majority media on cable, the internet and radio to be allowed since the majorjty no longer needs the phony lefttwing news anymore and gets their news from FOX and other outlets. And so, we see the same despotic left try to say the new, majority, popular and watched and listened to, is using "hate speech". We see it right here even in one post.
Meaning, they want to use this lie and agenda to criminalize the free press.
It is as simple as that. And what this despotic minority neeeds to understand is, everyone can now see it and keep up the antics, my numbers grow and the antics don't work anymore.
I'm surprised this is an argument.
The question is do you support civil rights or not. Without a true freedom of speech we can't reliably defend our ideas or air our grievances. No freedom of speech, no civil rights. That freedom extends to encompass all sorts of things that are distasteful.
The question is do you support civil rights or not. Without a true freedom of speech we can't reliably defend our ideas or air our grievances. No freedom of speech, no civil rights. That freedom extends to encompass all sorts of things that are distasteful.
There is a significant difference between legal freedom of speech and the ability to say whatever one wants without public consequences.
Legal freedom of speech, in this sense, is the freedom from government intervention to say whatever you want to say, with very few limits. This is the cornerstone of civil rights.
But there is no obligation for schools or companies or persons to provide a venue for hate speech. And people can potentially damage their careers if they say hateful and ignorant things, because others may not want to associate with them.
Legal freedom of speech, in this sense, is the freedom from government intervention to say whatever you want to say, with very few limits. This is the cornerstone of civil rights.
But there is no obligation for schools or companies or persons to provide a venue for hate speech. And people can potentially damage their careers if they say hateful and ignorant things, because others may not want to associate with them.
So here are my conclusiuns, and I am finding the general public agrees me.
* The far left, most of the left wing, and all the communists want to criminalize free speech and the free press. One method they want to utilize is "hate speech" agenda, which actually never targets Islamic extremists for example but those who want to expose the murderous agenda of Islamic terrorists and jihadees and to expose the anti-semetic and racist agenda of "black lives matter", the 8lack Muslims such as the Farrakhan group and their domestic terrorists, while censoring Christians, Hindus and others and especially to suppress the silent majority with intimidation and thuggery and government despotism.
* The far left uses fake "incidents" they antic themselves, or use meaningless stupid antics found in the general populace all over the world that have no reflection whatsoever to the societies that such antics perpetrated by disturbed people, who have the privilege to live in such societies, commit to build false narratives to attempt to further restrict the freedoms of sensible people with their own delusional totalitarianism and such agendas are largely by those who are also disturbed, self-hating and simply trying to build for themselves some sort of "look at me" identity since no one is really interested in them.
* There is actually true hate speech. Those who engage in such murderous agendas and true hate speech as seen as exotic and perhaps soldiers to the far left agenda - for example Islamic terrorists and such haters and death cults - are not only not exposed but these true haters are coddled as the far left tries to bully the innocent and decent humanity.
* In regards to actual purveyors of hate and murder, the majority agrees with me and disagrees with the far left, that:
ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS NOT A PROTECTED RELIGIOUS CLASS
Sensible people will began with that. Lot's more is coming. The far left is not going to be allowed to define hate speech. That is my observation and prediction. And I am pretty good at predictions, it is sometimes uncanny. There is true hate speech. Now watch
* The far left, most of the left wing, and all the communists want to criminalize free speech and the free press. One method they want to utilize is "hate speech" agenda, which actually never targets Islamic extremists for example but those who want to expose the murderous agenda of Islamic terrorists and jihadees and to expose the anti-semetic and racist agenda of "black lives matter", the 8lack Muslims such as the Farrakhan group and their domestic terrorists, while censoring Christians, Hindus and others and especially to suppress the silent majority with intimidation and thuggery and government despotism.
* The far left uses fake "incidents" they antic themselves, or use meaningless stupid antics found in the general populace all over the world that have no reflection whatsoever to the societies that such antics perpetrated by disturbed people, who have the privilege to live in such societies, commit to build false narratives to attempt to further restrict the freedoms of sensible people with their own delusional totalitarianism and such agendas are largely by those who are also disturbed, self-hating and simply trying to build for themselves some sort of "look at me" identity since no one is really interested in them.
* There is actually true hate speech. Those who engage in such murderous agendas and true hate speech as seen as exotic and perhaps soldiers to the far left agenda - for example Islamic terrorists and such haters and death cults - are not only not exposed but these true haters are coddled as the far left tries to bully the innocent and decent humanity.
* In regards to actual purveyors of hate and murder, the majority agrees with me and disagrees with the far left, that:
ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS NOT A PROTECTED RELIGIOUS CLASS
Sensible people will began with that. Lot's more is coming. The far left is not going to be allowed to define hate speech. That is my observation and prediction. And I am pretty good at predictions, it is sometimes uncanny. There is true hate speech. Now watch
Servant_of_the_One1
Well-Known Member
I on first thought disagree with the schools part, as in public schools which are state organizations. I think if a public institution provides a speaking venue it should be open to any legal speech, and I think that is an obligation on the state's part.
dust1n
Zindīq
Is also doesn't cover:
Libel, harassment, slander, copyright, threats, child pornography, sharing military secrets, breaking a non-disclosure agreement, business advertising, and supporting imminent lawless actions...
dust1n
Zindīq
So in your protest against deriding speech labelled hate speech, you labelled "far left" speech as hate speech and derided it, and terrorist-coddling, apparently...
You sir, will be a foot solider of some future dystopian state.
Last edited:
Some forms of speech (e.g. hate speech) are of little or no benefit to society and are probably harmful and/or subversive of it, including harmful to socially guaranteed freedoms and liberties. The only possible justification, in my opinion, for protecting such vile speech is that it is necessary to protect it in order to protect speech of greater value or worth (e.g. speech critical of government corruption). That is, one might argue that any effort to suppress hate speech would end up suppressing much more valuable speech too. But if hate speech could be suppressed without endangering more valuable speech, I'd be all for suppressing hate speech.