6 ms·

It's almost a completely biased question. Objectively: who engages in hate speech? The far right. The far left may be overly accepting of everything, let's sa

by mrlala 9y ago

It's almost a completely biased question. Objectively: who engages in hate speech? The far right. The far left may be overly accepting of everything, let's say.. they are not the ones engaging in hate speech. So it's no surprise that far right pages would be banned way more often than far left pages.

chmln 9y ago
"Hate speech" and "objective" don't belong in the same sentence. It is a subjective term open to interpretation, which is why it's dangerous.
- r00fus 9y ago
  It has a definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
  - tim333 9y ago
    >Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. So if I say frat bros are idiots am I guilty? There are grey areas.
  - LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
    Hate-speech, is a definition, so s/he/it who has the power to postulate definitions is defining what hate is. Power to the social-sys-admins!
- echlebek 9y ago
  Not really, if you use the definition of hate speech that commonwealth countries have written legislation about. I don't buy at all that it's dangerous.
angersock 9y ago
You're conveniently ignoring the mass witch hunts for nazis and other folks with wrongthink. It's a valid concern. EDIT: The downvotes kind of illustrate my point for me. There are a lot of people, especially with Twitter pile-on culture, that get lumped in by lefties as being nazis, misogynists, or whatever, and then this gets repeated by others until they're stuck with the label.
LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
The far left does not hate speech, it just hates on speech, any speech - narrowing the cone on what is discusable, until all things are disgusthings. A controllfreak in denial is really so preferable to a out of controll freak - declaring its gut feelings to be a irrefutable, god-selected for truth? Can i want to have none of these? Is there a third option, that opposes both?
Anderkent 9y ago
Far left very much engages in hate speech. Kill all white people etc etc. You can try to true scotsman that, but you can do the same for the far right.
- tomcooks 9y ago
  So in the US right is white people and left is everyone else?
  - Anderkent 9y ago
    No? The hate speech by the left doesn’t have to be against the right. In fact I believe much of hate speech by the extreme left is targeted onto people who consider themselves on the left too; generally hate speech targets the vulnerable or at least the locally unpopular; no reason to think that skews left or right.
- davvolun 9y ago
  I feel fairly confident I don't need to use 'no true scotsman' to argue the fact that no one with a "D" after their name asking Zuckerberg a question today has ever said "Kill all white people." On the other hand, Cruz wasted our time, and more importantly, the time any other member of Congress would have had to ask something important, asking Zuckerberg about a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day page that was deleted for 12 hours, yet failed to mention the words "Cambridge Analytica." Hmmmm.
  - ygaf 9y ago
    >no one with a "D" after their name asking Zuckerberg a question today I can't even see where the goalposts have gone.
    - davvolun 9y ago
      > Ted Cruz clearly showing that he's a partisan hack. Didn't give a crap about users' privacy or the issues at hand, he had to make it about 'liberal Silicon Valley' and 'conservative persecution'. What a joke. Couple of different "goal posts" here
mFixman 9y ago
The problem is not that right-wingers engage in hate speech, it's that they do an extreme version of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". The Democratic Senators aren't grilling Facebook for deleting pro-ISIS pages, but the President is completely happy to be supported by Nazi groups.
great_kraken 9y ago
I think a certain part of the far left can engage in hate speech against those who they view as intolerant of other's cultures or lifestyles (e.g. transgendered issues), and/or those who say things which they deem offensive (e.g. pronouns, triggering, rights movements, gender identity vs biology).
- Pfhreak 9y ago
  At the risk of stepping on a landmine given the thread above, consider using 'transgender' or 'trans' instead of 'transgenedered'. The two are subtly different, but that difference is important to some trans people. Transgendered implies something happened to someone, rather than transgender, which is an attribute someone has. Many trans people consider the transgendered offensive, e.g. "No one/No thing transgendered me, I was always this way. It's who I am."
  - EdSharkey 9y ago
    > Many trans people consider the transgendered offensive You are creating insanity everywhere you go with this line. Anyone who takes offense at such a trifle can only be out to pick a fight. And if someone is egging for a fight, shall we engage rather than wilt away? And isn't THAT the landmine you're stepping on here? Are you picking a fight? If so, where do you get off?
    - Pfhreak 9y ago
      When someone says, "Hey, I prefer X for myself", I generally make an token effort to acknowledge and accommodate that preference because it seems like the sort of thing a decent human being does.
      - EdSharkey 9y ago
        Right, but no one actually said to great_kraken, "I'd prefer it if you to say 'transgender' to 'transgendered'." You just went full speech police because you felt so empowered. And what I'm telling you is that your dismissive attempt to shutdown discourse in the way you did is toxic.
nunya213 9y ago
Maybe not actively peddling hate speech but the left is certainly active in interfering with free speech.
- kevindqc 9y ago
  What do you mean? Is the left jailing people for talking? That's news to me. As far as I know, people are still free to say what they want? Doesn't mean they don't get any consequences though. Or that other people are forced to give them an ear. Take Laura Ingraham. She's free to make fun of the Parkland survivors and she did. She's also losing her advertisers as a consequence of being a poor excuse of a human being. Also I would never invite her to come talk to anything I would organize (if I was organizing stuff). Would I be infringing on her free speech then by not giving her a platform? Why would I be obligated to give her a platform?
  - boryas 9y ago
    In the free society I want to live in, we ought to let people voice their opinions even when we disagree. There are limits to freedom of speech besides those put in place by the state. Taken to an extreme for purely rhetorical purposes: if you get fired, black-balled, and publicly shamed for voicing any opinion, then do you live in a society with freedom of speech? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty#Of_the_liberty_of_thought_and_discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty#Of_the_liberty_of_t...
    - Retra 9y ago
      If you live in a society where thoughtful, rational discourse is drowned in a sea of shouted opinions, then you do not have free speech either. Free speech is not the freedom to say anything you like, but the freedom to express any idea you like. You are not free to express it how you like to whoever you like. And there aren't many liberals willing to censor people for controversial opinions presented in a self-aware, carefully worded, and relevant manner abounding in due consideration for the facts. They do censor people who like to peddle propaganda and wave their victimhood around like pariahs.
  - 9y ago
EdSharkey 9y ago
I'll take free speech. Who do you think you are? Who gets to draw the line between what is hate and what is not? You? Certainly not YOU! The opinions and the cultural fads you chase do not lend you any moral superiority. YOU have no right to judge. I piss all over your self-seeking ideology. Would you send me to the gulag if you could?
- threatofrain 9y ago
  How may one speak to your children when you're not around? In other words, nearly every moment on the web...? Where is the red line? I think people are realizing just how much the web is shared.
  - EdSharkey 9y ago
    I'll take my free speech instead, nanny. I'll raise my own kids and they'll grow up just fine, you freedom-hating, thought-policing busybody, YOU! The future you yearn for is a hellscape.
    - sctb 9y ago
      Please stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - EdSharkey 9y ago
    I love the desperate "think of the children" attempts to rescue your comrade, by the way. Can't appeal to logic with your arguments so you alternate between dictatorship and clutching a purse. Stick to dictating how others shall or shall not live, it's more authentically YOU!

by mrlala 9y ago

chmln 9y ago

"Hate speech" and "objective" don't belong in the same sentence. It is a subjective term open to interpretation, which is why it's dangerous.

r00fus 9y ago
It has a definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
- tim333 9y ago
  >Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. So if I say frat bros are idiots am I guilty? There are grey areas.
- LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
  Hate-speech, is a definition, so s/he/it who has the power to postulate definitions is defining what hate is. Power to the social-sys-admins!
echlebek 9y ago
Not really, if you use the definition of hate speech that commonwealth countries have written legislation about. I don't buy at all that it's dangerous.

angersock 9y ago

You're conveniently ignoring the mass witch hunts for nazis and other folks with wrongthink. It's a valid concern. EDIT: The downvotes kind of illustrate my point for me. There are a lot of people, especially with Twitter pile-on culture, that get lumped in by lefties as being nazis, misogynists, or whatever, and then this gets repeated by others until they're stuck with the label.

LifeLiverTransp 9y ago

The far left does not hate speech, it just hates on speech, any speech - narrowing the cone on what is discusable, until all things are disgusthings. A controllfreak in denial is really so preferable to a out of controll freak - declaring its gut feelings to be a irrefutable, god-selected for truth? Can i want to have none of these? Is there a third option, that opposes both?

Anderkent 9y ago

Far left very much engages in hate speech. Kill all white people etc etc. You can try to true scotsman that, but you can do the same for the far right.

tomcooks 9y ago
So in the US right is white people and left is everyone else?
- Anderkent 9y ago
  No? The hate speech by the left doesn’t have to be against the right. In fact I believe much of hate speech by the extreme left is targeted onto people who consider themselves on the left too; generally hate speech targets the vulnerable or at least the locally unpopular; no reason to think that skews left or right.
davvolun 9y ago
I feel fairly confident I don't need to use 'no true scotsman' to argue the fact that no one with a "D" after their name asking Zuckerberg a question today has ever said "Kill all white people." On the other hand, Cruz wasted our time, and more importantly, the time any other member of Congress would have had to ask something important, asking Zuckerberg about a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day page that was deleted for 12 hours, yet failed to mention the words "Cambridge Analytica." Hmmmm.
- ygaf 9y ago
  >no one with a "D" after their name asking Zuckerberg a question today I can't even see where the goalposts have gone.
  - davvolun 9y ago
    > Ted Cruz clearly showing that he's a partisan hack. Didn't give a crap about users' privacy or the issues at hand, he had to make it about 'liberal Silicon Valley' and 'conservative persecution'. What a joke. Couple of different "goal posts" here

mFixman 9y ago

The problem is not that right-wingers engage in hate speech, it's that they do an extreme version of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". The Democratic Senators aren't grilling Facebook for deleting pro-ISIS pages, but the President is completely happy to be supported by Nazi groups.

great_kraken 9y ago

I think a certain part of the far left can engage in hate speech against those who they view as intolerant of other's cultures or lifestyles (e.g. transgendered issues), and/or those who say things which they deem offensive (e.g. pronouns, triggering, rights movements, gender identity vs biology).

Pfhreak 9y ago
At the risk of stepping on a landmine given the thread above, consider using 'transgender' or 'trans' instead of 'transgenedered'. The two are subtly different, but that difference is important to some trans people. Transgendered implies something happened to someone, rather than transgender, which is an attribute someone has. Many trans people consider the transgendered offensive, e.g. "No one/No thing transgendered me, I was always this way. It's who I am."
- EdSharkey 9y ago
  > Many trans people consider the transgendered offensive You are creating insanity everywhere you go with this line. Anyone who takes offense at such a trifle can only be out to pick a fight. And if someone is egging for a fight, shall we engage rather than wilt away? And isn't THAT the landmine you're stepping on here? Are you picking a fight? If so, where do you get off?
  - Pfhreak 9y ago
    When someone says, "Hey, I prefer X for myself", I generally make an token effort to acknowledge and accommodate that preference because it seems like the sort of thing a decent human being does.
    - EdSharkey 9y ago
      Right, but no one actually said to great_kraken, "I'd prefer it if you to say 'transgender' to 'transgendered'." You just went full speech police because you felt so empowered. And what I'm telling you is that your dismissive attempt to shutdown discourse in the way you did is toxic.

nunya213 9y ago

Maybe not actively peddling hate speech but the left is certainly active in interfering with free speech.

kevindqc 9y ago
What do you mean? Is the left jailing people for talking? That's news to me. As far as I know, people are still free to say what they want? Doesn't mean they don't get any consequences though. Or that other people are forced to give them an ear. Take Laura Ingraham. She's free to make fun of the Parkland survivors and she did. She's also losing her advertisers as a consequence of being a poor excuse of a human being. Also I would never invite her to come talk to anything I would organize (if I was organizing stuff). Would I be infringing on her free speech then by not giving her a platform? Why would I be obligated to give her a platform?
- boryas 9y ago
  In the free society I want to live in, we ought to let people voice their opinions even when we disagree. There are limits to freedom of speech besides those put in place by the state. Taken to an extreme for purely rhetorical purposes: if you get fired, black-balled, and publicly shamed for voicing any opinion, then do you live in a society with freedom of speech? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty#Of_the_liberty_of_thought_and_discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty#Of_the_liberty_of_t...
  - Retra 9y ago
    If you live in a society where thoughtful, rational discourse is drowned in a sea of shouted opinions, then you do not have free speech either. Free speech is not the freedom to say anything you like, but the freedom to express any idea you like. You are not free to express it how you like to whoever you like. And there aren't many liberals willing to censor people for controversial opinions presented in a self-aware, carefully worded, and relevant manner abounding in due consideration for the facts. They do censor people who like to peddle propaganda and wave their victimhood around like pariahs.
- 9y ago

EdSharkey 9y ago

I'll take free speech. Who do you think you are? Who gets to draw the line between what is hate and what is not? You? Certainly not YOU! The opinions and the cultural fads you chase do not lend you any moral superiority. YOU have no right to judge. I piss all over your self-seeking ideology. Would you send me to the gulag if you could?

threatofrain 9y ago
How may one speak to your children when you're not around? In other words, nearly every moment on the web...? Where is the red line? I think people are realizing just how much the web is shared.
- EdSharkey 9y ago
  I'll take my free speech instead, nanny. I'll raise my own kids and they'll grow up just fine, you freedom-hating, thought-policing busybody, YOU! The future you yearn for is a hellscape.
  - sctb 9y ago
    Please stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- EdSharkey 9y ago
  I love the desperate "think of the children" attempts to rescue your comrade, by the way. Can't appeal to logic with your arguments so you alternate between dictatorship and clutching a purse. Stick to dictating how others shall or shall not live, it's more authentically YOU!