7 ms·

I'd say that hate speech being banned is not an issue.

by adrinavarro 10y ago

gcp 10y ago
What is "hate speech"?
- espadrine 10y ago
  Hate speech is when someone verbally attacks a person or group on the basis of harmless features of theirs. Just like freedom of movement doesn't grant you the right to get into any bank vault, freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to harm.
  - gcp 10y ago
    What's a "harmless feature"? What about features where personal harm are traded for societal harm? (i.e. most politics) Can we discuss those?
    - espadrine 10y ago
      A harmless feature, here, is a physical or behavioral property which is not meant to affect you. Saying "I hate doctors" is not hate speech, for instance, because doctors want to cure you. It is a case of them causing physical harm (eg. through vaccines) which is socially beneficial. Saying "I hate disabled people" is hate speech, because they're not disabled to spite you.
      - gcp 10y ago
        verbally attacks a person or group on the basis of harmless features of theirs...A harmless feature, here, is a physical or behavioral property which is not meant to affect you. Ok, so we just banned discussing politics, religion and basically anything that deals with human relations because it's "hate speech". QED
        espadrine 10y ago
        Please read what I wrote again. Saying "I hate the left" is not hate speech, as politics is meant to affect you — it is meant to affect the whole world, after all. Saying "I hate muslims" is hate speech: practicing Islam is not meant to affect you. That doesn't mean you can't discuss it however: a discussion is not a verbal attack. You can even say "I hate the Jehovah's witnesses that knock on my door", as the group you are referring to directly affects you.
        pofjer 10y ago
        What about “I hate the passively aggressive Muslims who give their best to impose Islam and Sharia law through funding/helping/volunteering in illegal mosques, illegal paramilitary organisations, semi-legal Muslim clubs and ‘foundations’ as well as illegal ‘schools’ in Europe where innocent children are taught to undermine Western values and the norms of the society that welcomed their parents and grandparents with open arms with the only expectation that they would gracefully accept its secular values with Christian roots instead of giving extra effort to form ghettoised microsocieties who openly express hatred against them?” – is this a more acceptable way to express it? I won't disclose my personal views, but this is usually what people mean when they say that they hate Muslims, at least according to my experience after talking to them and trying to understand where the problem is. I am yet to see a single person who claims to hate nonpractising moderate Muslims who openly condemn everything listed above – but not only on words, while secretly admiring, liking or even having nothing against any parts of it.
        akjainaj 10y ago
        I wish I could gild comments like they do on reddit. Chapeau.
        espadrine 10y ago
        Your long sentence is not hate speech. "I hate muslims" is. It is similar to how you mustn't say "I hate women" just because you have an enemy that happens to have two X chromosomes. Although your real argument here is not about hate speech; it relates to proselytism, which definitely requires a legal framework.
      - pc86 10y ago
        And yet saying "I hate disabled people" does nothing to harm disabled people. I'd much rather people have the freedom to say stupid, harmless things, so everything knows they're idiots and can ignore them on things that actually matter, than be left with people who still feel that way but are simply smart enough to keep their mouth shut.
      - CaptainZapp 10y ago
        Saying "I hate disabled people" is hate speech, because they're not disabled to spite you. This is an opinion and I would be very surprised if this is illegal in any European country. It's certainly not hate speech. You may just out yourself as a complete asshole and rightfully suffer social consequences if you use such speech. Now, saying something like "Disabled people are the scum of the earth and should be eradicated" would probably fall under hate speech laws in some jusidictions. Note the qualitative difference of the statements.
- rayiner 10y ago
  What is a harmless feature? Does it include the person's religious or social beliefs?
- kalleboo 10y ago
  What is libel? What is calling fire in a packed theater? It's up to the courts.
reddytowns 10y ago
Define hatespeech, and you'll either rope a lot of valid points of view within it or make it too weak to count for anything.
- SCHiM 10y ago
  In my mind it's always been the difference between saying: <jews/muslims/immigrants> are a problem, and saying I _think_ that <jews/muslims/immigrants> are a problem. The same goes for insulting police officers. You can report your state of mind, but you can't use a descriptive tense, you need to explicitly state that it is your opinion. I haven't ever been in trouble of this sort of thing, and I also think that almost every human knows when real hate-speech is being bandied about. But I do know that a few years back the courts in the Netherlands ruled that if you tell a police officer: 'you're a fag' you can't defend yourself by saying it was just an opinion.
  - reddytowns 10y ago
    The problem with that is it supports one position over another no matter what the circumstances. What you're saying means that the only correct position is to support ever loosening restrictions on immigration. You can't ever go the other way, can't even discuss it. That is far more worrisome then me then the supposed reincarnation of Hitler in orange form. Christ, if Hitler isn't the new devil, capable of possessing people at random and these aren't the new Salem witch trials, I don't know what is.

I'd say that hate speech being banned is not an issue.

gcp 10y ago

What is "hate speech"?

espadrine 10y ago
Hate speech is when someone verbally attacks a person or group on the basis of harmless features of theirs. Just like freedom of movement doesn't grant you the right to get into any bank vault, freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to harm.
- gcp 10y ago
  What's a "harmless feature"? What about features where personal harm are traded for societal harm? (i.e. most politics) Can we discuss those?
  - espadrine 10y ago
    A harmless feature, here, is a physical or behavioral property which is not meant to affect you. Saying "I hate doctors" is not hate speech, for instance, because doctors want to cure you. It is a case of them causing physical harm (eg. through vaccines) which is socially beneficial. Saying "I hate disabled people" is hate speech, because they're not disabled to spite you.
    - gcp 10y ago
      verbally attacks a person or group on the basis of harmless features of theirs...A harmless feature, here, is a physical or behavioral property which is not meant to affect you. Ok, so we just banned discussing politics, religion and basically anything that deals with human relations because it's "hate speech". QED
      - espadrine 10y ago
        Please read what I wrote again. Saying "I hate the left" is not hate speech, as politics is meant to affect you — it is meant to affect the whole world, after all. Saying "I hate muslims" is hate speech: practicing Islam is not meant to affect you. That doesn't mean you can't discuss it however: a discussion is not a verbal attack. You can even say "I hate the Jehovah's witnesses that knock on my door", as the group you are referring to directly affects you.
        pofjer 10y ago
        What about “I hate the passively aggressive Muslims who give their best to impose Islam and Sharia law through funding/helping/volunteering in illegal mosques, illegal paramilitary organisations, semi-legal Muslim clubs and ‘foundations’ as well as illegal ‘schools’ in Europe where innocent children are taught to undermine Western values and the norms of the society that welcomed their parents and grandparents with open arms with the only expectation that they would gracefully accept its secular values with Christian roots instead of giving extra effort to form ghettoised microsocieties who openly express hatred against them?” – is this a more acceptable way to express it? I won't disclose my personal views, but this is usually what people mean when they say that they hate Muslims, at least according to my experience after talking to them and trying to understand where the problem is. I am yet to see a single person who claims to hate nonpractising moderate Muslims who openly condemn everything listed above – but not only on words, while secretly admiring, liking or even having nothing against any parts of it.
        akjainaj 10y ago
        I wish I could gild comments like they do on reddit. Chapeau.
        espadrine 10y ago
        Your long sentence is not hate speech. "I hate muslims" is. It is similar to how you mustn't say "I hate women" just because you have an enemy that happens to have two X chromosomes. Although your real argument here is not about hate speech; it relates to proselytism, which definitely requires a legal framework.
    - pc86 10y ago
      And yet saying "I hate disabled people" does nothing to harm disabled people. I'd much rather people have the freedom to say stupid, harmless things, so everything knows they're idiots and can ignore them on things that actually matter, than be left with people who still feel that way but are simply smart enough to keep their mouth shut.
    - CaptainZapp 10y ago
      Saying "I hate disabled people" is hate speech, because they're not disabled to spite you. This is an opinion and I would be very surprised if this is illegal in any European country. It's certainly not hate speech. You may just out yourself as a complete asshole and rightfully suffer social consequences if you use such speech. Now, saying something like "Disabled people are the scum of the earth and should be eradicated" would probably fall under hate speech laws in some jusidictions. Note the qualitative difference of the statements.
rayiner 10y ago
What is a harmless feature? Does it include the person's religious or social beliefs?
kalleboo 10y ago
What is libel? What is calling fire in a packed theater? It's up to the courts.

reddytowns 10y ago

Define hatespeech, and you'll either rope a lot of valid points of view within it or make it too weak to count for anything.

SCHiM 10y ago
In my mind it's always been the difference between saying: <jews/muslims/immigrants> are a problem, and saying I _think_ that <jews/muslims/immigrants> are a problem. The same goes for insulting police officers. You can report your state of mind, but you can't use a descriptive tense, you need to explicitly state that it is your opinion. I haven't ever been in trouble of this sort of thing, and I also think that almost every human knows when real hate-speech is being bandied about. But I do know that a few years back the courts in the Netherlands ruled that if you tell a police officer: 'you're a fag' you can't defend yourself by saying it was just an opinion.
- reddytowns 10y ago
  The problem with that is it supports one position over another no matter what the circumstances. What you're saying means that the only correct position is to support ever loosening restrictions on immigration. You can't ever go the other way, can't even discuss it. That is far more worrisome then me then the supposed reincarnation of Hitler in orange form. Christ, if Hitler isn't the new devil, capable of possessing people at random and these aren't the new Salem witch trials, I don't know what is.