3 ms·

We’re going in circles. The definition you quoted says hate speech is "...speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on s

We’re going in circles. The definition you quoted says hate speech is "...speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as...". "Towards a person or group based on something such as" => people defined by whatever characteristic (can be anything since there's no correct list to judge by). "encourages violence" => This is a crime, already covered in the First Amendment which I said is is a good enough policy. "expresses hate" > WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? Please explain how the primary statement of "hate speech is speech that expresses hate" is useful as a definition.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> This is a crime, already covered in the First Amendment which I said is is a good enough policy already. No, the first amendment doesn't protect speech that incites violence. Incitement and encouragement are different things. "Punch a Nazi" encourages, but doesn't incite violence, unless one is at a Nazi rally and there are nazis standing next to you. Similarly, "we should kill the blacks" or "we should push the Jews into the sea" encourage, but don't incite violence against a group based on immutable characteristics. To your response, "expressing hate" is pretty much self explanatory. A dictionary would define it as "profess a dislike of". I think that definition suffices, and I don't know why you need someone to explain this to you.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Fine, so hate speech is speech that "expresses hate and encourages violence". Please explain what "expressing hate" means? --- Replying to your edit: "To your response, "expressing hate" is pretty much self explanatory." Great, so we're still left with "hate speech is speech that expresses hate..." which is completely tautological and useless. Do you not see the problem there? Even if we replace it with "profess a dislike of", it remains useless. Do you consider disliking any group of people based on any characteristic to be hate speech? Do you realize how common this is? Is every single Democrat and Republican now engaged in hate speech? Is everyone on either side of a debate now engaged in hate speech? What do we do now?
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    No, you continue to ignore the whole immutable characteristics aspect. I get that you don't lie to recognize that part because your whole tautalogical line stops working, but it remains.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      So we're back to step 1. Hate speech is only based on immutable characteristics? There's no issue if you target people based on clothes, wealth, sports team, political affiliation, etc? The definition you quoted included religion so was that incorrect?
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        Like I said last time you asked this: I certainly think it's wrong/rude, but I also don't think there's any news to remove such speech, as the negative impact is minimal.
        manigandham 6y ago
        You didn't answer the question last time either. Is it, or is it not, hate speech? Your quoted definition includes religion. You've contradicted yourself again by saying it's only immutable characteristics. So which is it?
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        You didn't ask if they were hate speech, you asked if they were okay. I answered the question you asked, twice. No they're not hate speech. Personally I could go either way on religion falling under the hate speech/immutable characteristic category. I see good arguments in both directions. To humor you, we'll say that yes, it's immutable and therefore protected, since belief in a higher diety is axiomatic.
        6y ago

joshuamorton 6y ago

> This is a crime, already covered in the First Amendment which I said is is a good enough policy already. No, the first amendment doesn't protect speech that incites violence. Incitement and encouragement are different things. "Punch a Nazi" encourages, but doesn't incite violence, unless one is at a Nazi rally and there are nazis standing next to you. Similarly, "we should kill the blacks" or "we should push the Jews into the sea" encourage, but don't incite violence against a group based on immutable characteristics. To your response, "expressing hate" is pretty much self explanatory. A dictionary would define it as "profess a dislike of". I think that definition suffices, and I don't know why you need someone to explain this to you.

manigandham 6y ago
Fine, so hate speech is speech that "expresses hate and encourages violence". Please explain what "expressing hate" means? --- Replying to your edit: "To your response, "expressing hate" is pretty much self explanatory." Great, so we're still left with "hate speech is speech that expresses hate..." which is completely tautological and useless. Do you not see the problem there? Even if we replace it with "profess a dislike of", it remains useless. Do you consider disliking any group of people based on any characteristic to be hate speech? Do you realize how common this is? Is every single Democrat and Republican now engaged in hate speech? Is everyone on either side of a debate now engaged in hate speech? What do we do now?
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  No, you continue to ignore the whole immutable characteristics aspect. I get that you don't lie to recognize that part because your whole tautalogical line stops working, but it remains.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    So we're back to step 1. Hate speech is only based on immutable characteristics? There's no issue if you target people based on clothes, wealth, sports team, political affiliation, etc? The definition you quoted included religion so was that incorrect?
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      Like I said last time you asked this: I certainly think it's wrong/rude, but I also don't think there's any news to remove such speech, as the negative impact is minimal.
      - manigandham 6y ago
        You didn't answer the question last time either. Is it, or is it not, hate speech? Your quoted definition includes religion. You've contradicted yourself again by saying it's only immutable characteristics. So which is it?
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        You didn't ask if they were hate speech, you asked if they were okay. I answered the question you asked, twice. No they're not hate speech. Personally I could go either way on religion falling under the hate speech/immutable characteristic category. I see good arguments in both directions. To humor you, we'll say that yes, it's immutable and therefore protected, since belief in a higher diety is axiomatic.
        6y ago