3 ms·
It 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 gen
by mewpmewp2 2y ago
It 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!