4 ms·

The wrong side of history being people who practice or support hate speech.

by Hytosys 11y ago

smsm42 11y ago
Quite the contrary - people who want government to ban speech because they feel bad hearing it are on the wrong side. "Hate speech" is just another way of saying "I don't like this speech", nothing more. Which is fine - nobody should be forced to listen to something one doesn't like. But when this term is abused to justify violence and coercion - governmental and private - as is frequently the case - then it's the wrong site of history. Of course, Reddit or anybody has the right to choose which speech to host - but one doesn't need to invent special category of "hate speech" to express this simple thought.
- Hytosys 11y ago
  I respectfully deny your simplified definition of "hate speech" and reassert that history has decided that hate speech is to be prevented (unless we regress completely to a pre-civil rights society). Your supposed "justification of violence and coercion" seems misinformed, and I'd like to hear more about these instances of injustice.
  - smsm42 11y ago
    "history has decided" - what is this? Who is "history"? In US, for example, there is First Amendment, which guarantees every US person the basic right for free speech. Of course, not all countries are as eager to protect the rights of their citizens as United States are, and over the course of history there were many governments that infringed on those rights. However, declaring that these infringements somehow come from "history" and not from a bunch of misguided individuals that have no regard to their compatriot's rights I can only attribute to supreme arrogance or unwillingness to take responsibility for their own crimes. The willingness of the government to infringe on rights of the free speech by definition can not be any part of "civil rights society" - quite the contrary, it is the opposite of it, as one of the most basic rights - right to speak freely - is being violated.

The wrong side of history being people who practice or support hate speech.

by Hytosys 11y ago

The wrong side of history being people who practice or support hate speech.

Quite the contrary - people who want government to ban speech because they feel bad hearing it are on the wrong side. "Hate speech" is just another way of saying "I don't like this speech", nothing more. Which is fine - nobody should be forced to listen to something one doesn't like. But when this term is abused to justify violence and coercion - governmental and private - as is frequently the case - then it's the wrong site of history. Of course, Reddit or anybody has the right to choose which speech to host - but one doesn't need to invent special category of "hate speech" to express this simple thought.

Hytosys 11y ago
I respectfully deny your simplified definition of "hate speech" and reassert that history has decided that hate speech is to be prevented (unless we regress completely to a pre-civil rights society). Your supposed "justification of violence and coercion" seems misinformed, and I'd like to hear more about these instances of injustice.
- smsm42 11y ago
  "history has decided" - what is this? Who is "history"? In US, for example, there is First Amendment, which guarantees every US person the basic right for free speech. Of course, not all countries are as eager to protect the rights of their citizens as United States are, and over the course of history there were many governments that infringed on those rights. However, declaring that these infringements somehow come from "history" and not from a bunch of misguided individuals that have no regard to their compatriot's rights I can only attribute to supreme arrogance or unwillingness to take responsibility for their own crimes. The willingness of the government to infringe on rights of the free speech by definition can not be any part of "civil rights society" - quite the contrary, it is the opposite of it, as one of the most basic rights - right to speak freely - is being violated.