4 ms·

I agree. At the end of the day, who are we protecting when we silence hate speech? Are we suggesting that we ourselves cannot handle hearing and rejecting the

I agree. At the end of the day, who are we protecting when we silence hate speech? Are we suggesting that we ourselves cannot handle hearing and rejecting the speech, or are we suggesting that other adults should not even hear hate speech because they might be influenced? Either of those is a profound infantilization of the public. I am capable of hearing hate speech and rejecting it. I trust most other mature adults can do the same. I reject the notion that anyone needs to protect me from hate speech.

pas 6y ago
Umm, have you seen the public recently? If you don't need protection, great! But hate speech emboldens bigots. It has a chilling effect.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  If it emboldens them to commit an illegal act, arrest them. If "emboldens" just means that they are speaking in a venue you frequent, then that isn't a problem. > "It has a chilling effect." The irony is that you are using a term that is actually a consequence of the actions you propose.
  - pas 6y ago
    I have no problem with citing them. Just as there's traffic court, there could be a your're-a-fucking-bigot court. Enough strikes and you're out. (Yes, the the problem of state-approved reality is very obviously hard. Yet that's basically what Germany does by criminalizing denial of certain facts about WWII.) I'm perfectly aware. There's no irony. It's the dilemma of tolerance. Using oppression to minimize oppression. A chilling effect on undesirable ideas to counter their spread to counter the growth of groups whose presence and actions similarly lead to chilling effect. The not so subtle difference is that one group sometimes commits acts of terror. Yes, giving this capability officially to the state has serious consequences. Though it's not like states doesn't already have the capacity monopolized (and alas it's not like there are no abuses of state capacity without nowadays).
- kls 6y ago
  The problem is you are calling anyone who does not agree with your definitions, a bigot. Each side of radicals has no self reflection on the fact that they too are radicals.
  - pas 6y ago
    I completely agree that radicals usually lack perspective. I don't see how I call everyone who disagrees a bigot. I'm saying that the very real process of gathering strength of the alt-right works through a lot of channels that have basically one thing in common, which is speaking hateful bullshit. There are people who would benefit from some counter-process. (And a sample of one (koheripbal) who is fine is not a great counter-argument.) I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with this is a bigot. Far from it. Disagreements are healthy, especially constructive criticism.
    - kls 6y ago
      Fair enough, I retract my insinuation of your intent.

pas 6y ago

Umm, have you seen the public recently? If you don't need protection, great! But hate speech emboldens bigots. It has a chilling effect.

koheripbal 6y ago
If it emboldens them to commit an illegal act, arrest them. If "emboldens" just means that they are speaking in a venue you frequent, then that isn't a problem. > "It has a chilling effect." The irony is that you are using a term that is actually a consequence of the actions you propose.
- pas 6y ago
  I have no problem with citing them. Just as there's traffic court, there could be a your're-a-fucking-bigot court. Enough strikes and you're out. (Yes, the the problem of state-approved reality is very obviously hard. Yet that's basically what Germany does by criminalizing denial of certain facts about WWII.) I'm perfectly aware. There's no irony. It's the dilemma of tolerance. Using oppression to minimize oppression. A chilling effect on undesirable ideas to counter their spread to counter the growth of groups whose presence and actions similarly lead to chilling effect. The not so subtle difference is that one group sometimes commits acts of terror. Yes, giving this capability officially to the state has serious consequences. Though it's not like states doesn't already have the capacity monopolized (and alas it's not like there are no abuses of state capacity without nowadays).
kls 6y ago
The problem is you are calling anyone who does not agree with your definitions, a bigot. Each side of radicals has no self reflection on the fact that they too are radicals.
- pas 6y ago
  I completely agree that radicals usually lack perspective. I don't see how I call everyone who disagrees a bigot. I'm saying that the very real process of gathering strength of the alt-right works through a lot of channels that have basically one thing in common, which is speaking hateful bullshit. There are people who would benefit from some counter-process. (And a sample of one (koheripbal) who is fine is not a great counter-argument.) I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with this is a bigot. Far from it. Disagreements are healthy, especially constructive criticism.
  - kls 6y ago
    Fair enough, I retract my insinuation of your intent.