3 ms·

Who's defining "hate speech"? Do you want Viktor Orbán to define it? How about Tayyip Erdoğan? Or Donald Trump? Or how about the Christian church? They prefer

• manuelabeledo 3y ago
  What you are saying is that morals should not have changed and evolved at all, ever, because societies aren't allowed to broadly define what "respect" means, only a handful of asshats. Also, your points very strongly suggest that the paradox of the intolerance would apply here.
  • brightlancer 3y ago
    > Also, your points very strongly suggest that the paradox of the intolerance would apply here. Your response suggests you don't understand my points at all. The "paradox of tolerance" could just as easily be invoked by Orbán, Erdoğan, Trump, the Christian churches, etc. I suspect Orbán and Erdoğan HAVE. Once we give "society" the ability to decide what is and is not "hate speech", you give people you oppose and fear the ability to decide what is and is not "hate speech". The answer to that isn't to craft a better definition of "hate speech", or create a permanent majority of your particular brand of ideology, it's to eliminate the idea that any group should oppress the other based upon what they believe. It's a tenet of liberalism.
    • manuelabeledo 3y ago
      > Your response suggests you don't understand my points at all. I understand them pretty well: since moral relativism is absolute, there is no point in setting limits on speech. > ... it's to eliminate the idea that any group should oppress the other based upon what they believe. I have no issues with oppression against those wanting to oppress others. Again, paradox of tolerance.