4 ms·

This is where it gets interesting and the devil really is in the detail on this one. If you define hate speech according to this: The International Covenant o

by xupybd 6y ago

This is where it gets interesting and the devil really is in the detail on this one. If you define hate speech according to this: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence shall be prohibited by law". You are saying that this group cannot broadcast a message if that message tells transsexual people that they cannot be transsexual and be approved of by this groups god. Yet broadcasting such messages is a core part of their religion. So are you now discriminating against that religion in an effort to avoid discriminating against transsexual people? If that is so then your comment could be classed as hate speech. I don't think it should be but I do think this highlights the risks and the need to limit what we consider hate speech. That to err on the side of free speech is the safer option.

sli 6y ago
This is a bad faith argument, or at least just a bad argument in general. Denouncing transphobia has absolutely nothing to do with said transphobe's religion and everything to do with denoucning hateful rhetoric. It's a leap in logic to assume otherwise. What's that common Christian refrain? Love the sinner, hate the sin? By your same logic, "love the sinner, hate the sin" is hate speech despite not attacking the person, but their harmful views and actions.
- swirepe 6y ago
  Not to be tHaT gUy, but Christians aren't supposed to hate the sin in others. It's not our business, but God's. >Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A37-42 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A37-42 Edited to add: I don't think there should be a religious exemption to hate speech.
eightysixfour 6y ago
This is the paradox of tolerance, unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance. A tolerant society must draw lines or end up overrun. Taleb has an interesting perspective on it as well: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
- subsubzero 6y ago
  Great article, the %3 rule explains alot of the dysfunction in US politics. With fringe actors on the right(tea party, Qanon) and left(AOC, Antifa). The need for solidarity in either party allows for embrace of ideas/ideals the majority would reject if not for the need to "band together on party lines".
heavyset_go 6y ago
People have used their religions to give a pass to discrimination for a long time[1]. Today's scapegoat is trans people, but a few decades ago it was miscegenation. People discriminated against mixed-race couples and said it was a core tenet of their religion[1]: > Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. Surely if we could handle situations like the above that were leveled against mixed-race couples half of a century ago, we can handle the same being leveled at trans people today. When it comes to free speech and freedom of religion, the ACLU[1] has this to say: > Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion are not new. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today. [1] https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5513&context=flr https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=55... [2] https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty/using-religion-discriminate/ https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty/using-religion...

by xupybd 6y ago

sli 6y ago

This is a bad faith argument, or at least just a bad argument in general. Denouncing transphobia has absolutely nothing to do with said transphobe's religion and everything to do with denoucning hateful rhetoric. It's a leap in logic to assume otherwise. What's that common Christian refrain? Love the sinner, hate the sin? By your same logic, "love the sinner, hate the sin" is hate speech despite not attacking the person, but their harmful views and actions.

swirepe 6y ago
Not to be tHaT gUy, but Christians aren't supposed to hate the sin in others. It's not our business, but God's. >Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A37-42 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A37-42 Edited to add: I don't think there should be a religious exemption to hate speech.

eightysixfour 6y ago

This is the paradox of tolerance, unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance. A tolerant society must draw lines or end up overrun. Taleb has an interesting perspective on it as well: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

subsubzero 6y ago
Great article, the %3 rule explains alot of the dysfunction in US politics. With fringe actors on the right(tea party, Qanon) and left(AOC, Antifa). The need for solidarity in either party allows for embrace of ideas/ideals the majority would reject if not for the need to "band together on party lines".

heavyset_go 6y ago

People have used their religions to give a pass to discrimination for a long time[1]. Today's scapegoat is trans people, but a few decades ago it was miscegenation. People discriminated against mixed-race couples and said it was a core tenet of their religion[1]: > Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. Surely if we could handle situations like the above that were leveled against mixed-race couples half of a century ago, we can handle the same being leveled at trans people today. When it comes to free speech and freedom of religion, the ACLU[1] has this to say: > Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion are not new. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today. [1] https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5513&context=flr https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=55... [2] https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty/using-religion-discriminate/ https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty/using-religion...