3 ms·

>...but we know that allowing hate to be spewed unconditionally is itself a form of silencing others. This is not clear to me. Furthermore, this statement assu

• latexr 2y ago
  > This is not clear to me. It is not clear to you that when a group has such contempt for another they threaten and attack them verbally and physically, that the latter will be afraid to speak freely? Find a couple of gay or black adults in the US or Western Europe and ask them about events they’ve personally been through. > Furthermore, this statement assumes that there is a single and - more importantly - static definition of what is "hate speech" No, it does not. That was not part of the claim at all.
  • remarkEon 2y ago
    You are doing the exact thing that makes this discussion impossible. You are conflating speech (sounds that come out of my mouth) with physical violence (broadly illegal). The malleability of the definition of "hate speech" is the implied premise in every one of these debates, because without it your arguments make no sense. You even included a helpful hint in your original post. >You can just look at the US, how’s the unfettered hate and disinformation working out over there? You are drawing a comparison here that goes something like "the US doesn't have draconian hate speech laws like some countries in Europe, and as a result there are political outcomes I don't like". It's working out fine, by the way.