4 ms·
> Hate to break this to you, but society as a whole, and not "big tech", have "moved the goalposts" to consider hate speech frowned upon. And in this case "soc
by tivert 3y ago
> Hate to break this to you, but society as a whole, and not "big tech", have "moved the goalposts" to consider hate speech frowned upon.
And in this case "society as a whole" means liberals.
It's pretty essential to understand this is an area of political controversy where rival factions are fighting with each other, and those factions have different strengths and weaknesses.
The liberal faction has a much stronger hold of certain institutions (e.g. media, academia) that give it much more power over language. Redefining terms is a pretty powerful weapon. For example, if there's a consensus that "hate speech" is unacceptable, win your battle by redefining it into a grab-bag that encompasses all kinds of things you oppose. Another example is the trick of redefining "society as a whole" to mean your faction, to delegitimize your opponents even if they have similar levels of support. That tactic has the most power within the faction and with "neutrals," opponents can see through it but often have trouble countering it.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago> And in this case "society as a whole" means liberals. Are we really debating if saying that "black people are intellectually inferior", is hate speech? Are the merits of any of the sides defending or attacking this statement, worth debating without a context? OP came with this broad statement that "black people IQ is lower" than other races. He stated that it was a "fact", which may as well be, but without a context, not only it is meaningless, but derogatory for no other better reason than attacking someone for the color of their skin. If we, as a society, cannot find comments like these, "wrong", then we have failed.
- tivert 3y ago>> And in this case "society as a whole" means liberals. > Are we really debating if saying that "black people are intellectually inferior", is hate speech? Are the merits of any of the sides defending or attacking this statement, worth debating without a context? The OP gave two examples, and you're ignoring one. There's a lot more political across-the-board consensus about race and IQ than there is about transgenderism, and that actually factors into my point.