4 ms·

Then, should Kathy Griffin have been deplatformed when she showed a picture of her holding the severed head of a likeness of Trump? How is that not hate speech?

Then, should Kathy Griffin have been deplatformed when she showed a picture of her holding the severed head of a likeness of Trump? How is that not hate speech? Can I show a picture of a severed head of something looking like Nancy Pelosi? When certain political groups say "we have to get in their faces" is that an incitement to violence or at least harassment? Can I say, "in my opinion, politician X should be executed for crimes against America?" Is that incitement or just a protected statement of opinion? When Hillary called 1/2 of Trump supporters "deplorables" isn't that hate speech? I heard plenty of people say that anti-vax people should be executed or at least left to starve to death (Chomsky said something like this). Is that hate or an opinion? Hate speech is hopelessly vaguely defined and will be abused by whichever side is in power.

Jordrok 3y ago
> When Hillary called 1/2 of Trump supporters "deplorables" isn't that hate speech? No, it is unequivocally, objectively not hate speech. Nowhere in there is there a threat of violence. I don't really care if it hurts your feelings. Make better choices in life.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
I would love to see a source showing Noam Chomsky advocating that antivaxers should be executed or "left to starve".
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  They probably meant something like this (no call for executions!) https://news.yahoo.com/noam-chomsky-unvaccinated-remove-themselves-171900487.html https://news.yahoo.com/noam-chomsky-unvaccinated-remove-them...
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
    Seems like all he really said was that people who refuse to get vaccinated should take responsibility for the fact that they're objectively a threat to other people and that dealing with the consequences of their own actions is ultimately their problem. Interpreting that as him saying they should starve is certainly... creative.
    - lumb63 3y ago
      > "How can we get food to them?" Chomsky told YouTube's Primo Radical on Sunday. "Well, that's actually their problem." What if a majority group, maybe white Americans, decided that a minority group, maybe one with a high crime rate, like African Americans [1], was dangerous and should be segregated from society, and said that access to food was their problem to figure out? That they were a high-crime group, and it was dangerous to society if they continued to operate in it? I imagine you would be singing a different tune if those were the groups in discussion. [1]: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2020-incident-based-data https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2020-in...
      - denton-scratch 3y ago
        Chomsky is arguing that unvaccinated people are a danger to those they come into contact with. Not a potential danger - a real danger. It's not like having brown skin; you can't choose not to have brown skin. People are free to not be vaccinated; and other people are free to shun them. That's his point, the way I read it.
      - mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
        This is very strange reasoning. Whatever I might have thought if he had said that, he did not say that, therefore it is not relevant. He didn't even say antivaxers "should be segregated", the writer added that. But clearly arguing in good faith is but a distant memory at this point. Let's just make up imaginary scenarios and argue about those, I guess.
        josephcsible 3y ago
        > Whatever I might have thought if he had said that, he did not say that, therefore it is not relevant. Do you not consider counterfactual thinking to have any value?
        mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
        There's nothing wrong with counterfactuals in general, but you have to do it correctly. Doing it wrong leads to a strawman and that has very little value indeed.
kristopolous 3y ago
> should Kathy Griffin have been deplatformed when she showed a picture of her holding the severed head of a likeness of Trump She was. Fired almost immediately. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kathy-griffin-fired-cnn-over-gruesome-photo-trump-n766716 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kathy-griffin-fired-cnn... > When Hillary called 1/2 of Trump supporters "deplorables" isn't that hate speech? She apologized as soon as it happened https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables > anti-vax people should be executed or at least left to starve to death (Chomsky said something like this) Incorrect. He called for classic quarantining which is exactly what happened before vaccines. https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/noam-chomsky-calls-for-unvaccinated-to-be-isolated-from-society-b2182947.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/noam-chomsky-calls-for... > Hate speech is hopelessly vaguely defined Incorrect! Most organizations have reached wildly close consensus on the matter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
- rgoulter 3y ago
  > > Hate speech is hopelessly vaguely defined > Incorrect! Most organizations have reached wildly close consensus on the matter That wikipedia article indicates: """Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".""" There was a bill in Florida which: """The legislation would prohibit individuals from making people “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.”""" https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/19/us/florida-education-critical-race-theory-bill/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/19/us/florida-education-crit... Absent any other context, "hate speech is animosity/disparagement towards ... race" is consistent with what the bill protects against: "don't make people feel distress on account of race". The concerns are ostensibly in the same direction. I suspect those opposed to the Florida bill would really prefer a more narrow interpretation of 'hate speech', and those in favour would prefer a broader interpretation.
  - kristopolous 3y ago

Jordrok 3y ago

> When Hillary called 1/2 of Trump supporters "deplorables" isn't that hate speech? No, it is unequivocally, objectively not hate speech. Nowhere in there is there a threat of violence. I don't really care if it hurts your feelings. Make better choices in life.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago

I would love to see a source showing Noam Chomsky advocating that antivaxers should be executed or "left to starve".

denton-scratch 3y ago
They probably meant something like this (no call for executions!) https://news.yahoo.com/noam-chomsky-unvaccinated-remove-themselves-171900487.html https://news.yahoo.com/noam-chomsky-unvaccinated-remove-them...
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
  Seems like all he really said was that people who refuse to get vaccinated should take responsibility for the fact that they're objectively a threat to other people and that dealing with the consequences of their own actions is ultimately their problem. Interpreting that as him saying they should starve is certainly... creative.
  - lumb63 3y ago
    > "How can we get food to them?" Chomsky told YouTube's Primo Radical on Sunday. "Well, that's actually their problem." What if a majority group, maybe white Americans, decided that a minority group, maybe one with a high crime rate, like African Americans [1], was dangerous and should be segregated from society, and said that access to food was their problem to figure out? That they were a high-crime group, and it was dangerous to society if they continued to operate in it? I imagine you would be singing a different tune if those were the groups in discussion. [1]: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2020-incident-based-data https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2020-in...
    - denton-scratch 3y ago
      Chomsky is arguing that unvaccinated people are a danger to those they come into contact with. Not a potential danger - a real danger. It's not like having brown skin; you can't choose not to have brown skin. People are free to not be vaccinated; and other people are free to shun them. That's his point, the way I read it.
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
      This is very strange reasoning. Whatever I might have thought if he had said that, he did not say that, therefore it is not relevant. He didn't even say antivaxers "should be segregated", the writer added that. But clearly arguing in good faith is but a distant memory at this point. Let's just make up imaginary scenarios and argue about those, I guess.
      - josephcsible 3y ago
        > Whatever I might have thought if he had said that, he did not say that, therefore it is not relevant. Do you not consider counterfactual thinking to have any value?
        mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
        There's nothing wrong with counterfactuals in general, but you have to do it correctly. Doing it wrong leads to a strawman and that has very little value indeed.

kristopolous 3y ago

> should Kathy Griffin have been deplatformed when she showed a picture of her holding the severed head of a likeness of Trump She was. Fired almost immediately. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kathy-griffin-fired-cnn-over-gruesome-photo-trump-n766716 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kathy-griffin-fired-cnn... > When Hillary called 1/2 of Trump supporters "deplorables" isn't that hate speech? She apologized as soon as it happened https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables > anti-vax people should be executed or at least left to starve to death (Chomsky said something like this) Incorrect. He called for classic quarantining which is exactly what happened before vaccines. https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/noam-chomsky-calls-for-unvaccinated-to-be-isolated-from-society-b2182947.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/noam-chomsky-calls-for... > Hate speech is hopelessly vaguely defined Incorrect! Most organizations have reached wildly close consensus on the matter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

rgoulter 3y ago
> > Hate speech is hopelessly vaguely defined > Incorrect! Most organizations have reached wildly close consensus on the matter That wikipedia article indicates: """Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".""" There was a bill in Florida which: """The legislation would prohibit individuals from making people “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.”""" https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/19/us/florida-education-critical-race-theory-bill/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/19/us/florida-education-crit... Absent any other context, "hate speech is animosity/disparagement towards ... race" is consistent with what the bill protects against: "don't make people feel distress on account of race". The concerns are ostensibly in the same direction. I suspect those opposed to the Florida bill would really prefer a more narrow interpretation of 'hate speech', and those in favour would prefer a broader interpretation.
- kristopolous 3y ago