6 ms·
What was the negative statement? To me the logic is that: 1. Criticising a religion != hate speech, or generally making fun of or criticising any sort of relig
by mewpmewp2 2y ago
What was the negative statement? To me the logic is that:
1. Criticising a religion != hate speech, or generally making fun of or criticising any sort of religious figure like Muhammad or Jesus != hate speech.
2. Calling out for a group of people of certain religion to have X negative consequences = hate speech.
- belorn 2y agoIf people followed that logic then I would claim that the criticism against hate speech regulations and moderation would be much smaller and likely negligible. If we took out ambiguous and veiled hate speech from the equation, and only looked at explicit and unambiguous statements, it would be much less up to interpretation.
- baggy_trough 2y ago"I do not believe we should wish people Merry Christmas; instead, we should say Happy Holidays." Hate speech against Christians? It's a negative consequence.
- mewpmewp2 2y agoIt has to be more direct (and vice versa wouldn't also be hate speech) call out for harm that specifically implies treating a someone or group of people for general traits worse than others. The logic is: 1. Has to be harmful for a certain group of people with certain inherent traits. 2. Has to be harm that would be generally considered harmful by most groups if they were on the receiving end. E.g. reducing pay, sending people out of the country, violence, etc. Most people would find it harmful to be forced out of their living place, but not all groups would care about how "holidays" are called or find it a basic right.
- baggy_trough 2y agoThere's no way to evaluate "considered harmful" outside of politics. So this is calling for political limitations on speech. Very bad!