Did I mention liberals? I don’t recall mentioning liberals.
I make no attempts to justify their actions. People who do hurt others deserve to be punished, no matter their beliefs or motivations. However, you were extremely dehumanizing in your comment. Don’t do that. They are still humans. They are still worthy of sympathy, as all humans are.
You do realize that these “authoritarians/nazis/fascism/tyrants” use the exact same language when talking about you, right?
Thought is not a crime; ideas are not crimes; political leanings are not a crime; being a racist, nazi, facist, communist, socialist, bigot, homophobe, transphobe or whatever else is not a crime. The moment it becomes one, we start punishing people for what they believe which is IMO and the opinions of many others objectively wrong. You don’t do that. Even if you lose, you don’t become a barbarian. You fight the ones that act. You fight the ones that actually hurt people. Actions, not thoughts, are what is punishable in a civilized society, so take it easy, Big Brother.
You use “these people” and “they” a lot. You do know that the people you are talking about are individuals, right? Human beings like you? Hurt in maybe a thousand more ways than you. Embracing some terrible hatred to cover whatever brokenness they have. If someone is actually convinced that fascism is the way forward, you’re actually ok with enacting violence on them? If you really would be ok with hurting them for their beliefs, then you, my friend, are the one who will bring tyranny; just a tyranny of a different sort. A tyranny of your ideas, your definitions, and your “tolerance.” No better than “them.”
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.
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.
True. Social shaming is a very effective tool against this stuff. I draw a hard line at laws that stop it, but I see your point.
There should never be legal consequences for it. I am absolutely for everyone and anyone to be able to say as much racist, sexist, homophobic or what-have-you crap as they want. BUT I agree that the social consequences should be allowed to thrive. Act like a jerk; people are jerks right back. Act like an absolute piece of shit; guess how people treat you? I think that all this sabre rattling about censoring hate speech is just driving the attention-whores into the public forum, not because they actually hate the people they say they do, but because they’re attention whores.
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.
Intolerance must be put down, with force. It is not hypocritical. It is not paradoxical.
The human capacity for cognitive dissonance will never cease to amaze me.
A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.
They have a right to say anything they want so we can make an example of them and they don’t go into hiding and do dumb shit.
Well… that’s not very freedom of you.
If people vote for their own chains in a free and democratic society, they deserve to get what they want. Now whether we still have such a society is debatable. But I still fundamentally believe that any and all forms of censorship are the wrong way to go and will only accelerate the decline into totalitarianism.
So, how about we agree to disagree, mate? ; )
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.