4 ms·

How you scope the entirety of the universe and how you group the people within determines the minority. Either way, the point that if hate speech is targeting

How you scope the entirety of the universe and how you group the people within determines the minority. Either way, the point that if hate speech is targeting against a "group", then that group can be anything and anyone. There is no specific connection to "minorities", whatever that means to you. It just dilutes the discussion about defining hate speech.

foldr 6y ago
>How you scope the entirety of the universe and how you group the people within determines the minority. That is entirely specious, pedantic and irrelevant. In the context relevant to hate speech, there is no doubt that, say, LGBTQ individuals or Jews are minority groups. I don't think you can really be serious about denying this (given that the numbers are what they are). I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. >There is no specific connection to "minorities", whatever that means to you. There is no essential connection between hate speech and minorities, but there's a very obvious connection. Historically, many victims of hate speech and other hate crimes have been members of minority groups. And it's not difficult to see why. It's a lot easier for a majority group to persecute a minority group than vice versa.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Alright, let me rephrase: Hate speech is subjective. Minority is subjective. Even if there are commonly considered minority groups, it doesn't solve for the definition of hate speech other than just being a shortcut to defining a group membership that is the basis for the "hate". Therefore there is really no connection (essential or otherwise) that is useful to the discussion of what is hate speech.
  - foldr 6y ago
    It is not subjective in any interesting sense whether a given group is a minority within a particular society. It's simply a question of counting. The connection, as various people have explained to you, is that minorities within a society tend to be more vulnerable to hate speech and its associated effects.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      You can't count until you know the (subjectively chosen) boundary of the whole. For example, a minority in your city may not be the minority in another country. Either way, so what if it affects minorities more often? The question is What is hate speech? and saying "it affects minorities more" does not solve for that definition at all. Hence why the connection does not matter/exist.
      - foldr 6y ago
        Obviously you choose the ‘boundary of the whole’ according to the location of the instance of hate speech. E.g., Jews were a minority in 1930s Germany; LGBTQ individuals are a minority more or less everywhere; Muslims are a minority in London, etc. etc. There’s nothing about this that’s difficult to understand, and you really just seem to be trolling at this point. As to your ‘so what’, you now seem to accept that there is a connection between minorities and hate speech, which was the point at issue.
        dane-pgp 6y ago
        To pick a concrete (if inflammatory) example of the subjectivity of "minority", perhaps it is worth considering the example of "Trump voters". Within the context of the US, they are less than 50% of the population, so would it be hate speech to insult his supporters? To pick a smaller minority, what about "Baby Boomers". Should the "OK, boomer" meme be banned as hate speech? At 22% of the US population, they constitute a smaller minority than the proportion of non-white Americans (28%, excluding White Hispanics).
        foldr 6y ago
        No-one thinks that anything insulting said to any minority automatically qualifies as hate speech. This is a straw man. The point is that e.g. ethnic, religious and sexual minorities have historically been some of the primary victims of hate speech.
        6y ago

foldr 6y ago

>How you scope the entirety of the universe and how you group the people within determines the minority. That is entirely specious, pedantic and irrelevant. In the context relevant to hate speech, there is no doubt that, say, LGBTQ individuals or Jews are minority groups. I don't think you can really be serious about denying this (given that the numbers are what they are). I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. >There is no specific connection to "minorities", whatever that means to you. There is no essential connection between hate speech and minorities, but there's a very obvious connection. Historically, many victims of hate speech and other hate crimes have been members of minority groups. And it's not difficult to see why. It's a lot easier for a majority group to persecute a minority group than vice versa.

manigandham 6y ago
Alright, let me rephrase: Hate speech is subjective. Minority is subjective. Even if there are commonly considered minority groups, it doesn't solve for the definition of hate speech other than just being a shortcut to defining a group membership that is the basis for the "hate". Therefore there is really no connection (essential or otherwise) that is useful to the discussion of what is hate speech.
- foldr 6y ago
  It is not subjective in any interesting sense whether a given group is a minority within a particular society. It's simply a question of counting. The connection, as various people have explained to you, is that minorities within a society tend to be more vulnerable to hate speech and its associated effects.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    You can't count until you know the (subjectively chosen) boundary of the whole. For example, a minority in your city may not be the minority in another country. Either way, so what if it affects minorities more often? The question is What is hate speech? and saying "it affects minorities more" does not solve for that definition at all. Hence why the connection does not matter/exist.
    - foldr 6y ago
      Obviously you choose the ‘boundary of the whole’ according to the location of the instance of hate speech. E.g., Jews were a minority in 1930s Germany; LGBTQ individuals are a minority more or less everywhere; Muslims are a minority in London, etc. etc. There’s nothing about this that’s difficult to understand, and you really just seem to be trolling at this point. As to your ‘so what’, you now seem to accept that there is a connection between minorities and hate speech, which was the point at issue.
      - dane-pgp 6y ago
        To pick a concrete (if inflammatory) example of the subjectivity of "minority", perhaps it is worth considering the example of "Trump voters". Within the context of the US, they are less than 50% of the population, so would it be hate speech to insult his supporters? To pick a smaller minority, what about "Baby Boomers". Should the "OK, boomer" meme be banned as hate speech? At 22% of the US population, they constitute a smaller minority than the proportion of non-white Americans (28%, excluding White Hispanics).
        foldr 6y ago
        No-one thinks that anything insulting said to any minority automatically qualifies as hate speech. This is a straw man. The point is that e.g. ethnic, religious and sexual minorities have historically been some of the primary victims of hate speech.
        6y ago