I agree that that using destructive blanket terms for groups and making caricatures of people is not novel, nor is the adoption of unfair, discriminatory polici

I agree that that using destructive blanket terms for groups and making caricatures of people is not novel, nor is the adoption of unfair, discriminatory policies novel. Because what constitutes hate speech is subjective, it might be something that is applied to others opportunistically and with surprisingly little provocation of any discrimination it supposedly seeks to reverse. ‘You’ve upset me, so you owe me,’ is a tactic that can be used opportunistically. For info, the first citation is from the 2019 UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech (https://www.rightsforpeace.org/policy-docs https://www.rightsforpeace.org/policy-docs), so is a pretty influential body for this topic and may well affect policy. It is true that Wikipedia should not be relied upon as an authoritative resource, but the link to the Guardian article can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/27/karen-race-white-women-black-americans-racism; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/27/karen-race-whi... how broadly the term is applied can be gauged from the article or other instances where it appears on social media. Addressing each of your points: 1. I agree that every insult is not a threat and its severity is subjective. One person might be hurt or even feel threatened by seemingly innocuous language whilst another might shrug off deliberate, targeted insults; simply using a person’s name or words like ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ can be threatening if the other person is about to be violent. People can even deliberately claim offense to exploit the subjectivity in dialogue. In this instance we are in danger of granting a term a degree of recognition which it is actually too subjective to deserve and this is opening up opportunity for misuse. 2. The vulnerability of the target argument is again subjective; 1 violent criminal amongst 30 sheepish academics will feel zero threat whereas the 30 will all be intimidated by this person. My experience has been that bullies are generally a minority in a pool of people – but weak people will follow and support them. History is full of instances where subordinated groups have vastly outnumbered the minority which holds sway over them (the feudal system, caste systems, colonialism, crime bosses, corporate org structures, etc.). Power systems are not necessarily gauged by the number of people in the group – a lion will not be threatened by a herd of sheep. 3. I agree that centralised micro-management of this issue is not possible or even desirable. Will some people have to overcome prejudices against them irrespective of whether they have the same rights as everyone else? Yes. For example, women may be regarded as the weaker sex or more emotional, whilst men may be regarded as dictatorial, insensitive ‘mansplainers’. Should we try to even things out for them by introducing subjective rules that favour them above others? I do not think so.