- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
This is something I’ve been shouting from the rooftops every time people online cheer on the idea of “cracking down” on hate speech. It eventually will be used against you because some dipshits will redefine what “hateful” means.
Hate speech isn’t even mentioned in this article, and hate speech is a term with specific legal definitions (depending on your country). You’re spreading misinformation against laws that protect minorities.
Bad actors using illegitimate bad faith definitions is not a valid reason to do nothing about a problem.
Politicians are also redefining climate protests as terrorism. That doesn’t mean that we should ignore terrorism OR climate catastrophe.
Sooo nothing should be done about hate speech bc you might be incorrectly defined as a bigot? That’s fucking ridiculous, how the hell can you support hateful fuckers being allowed to spew their bile? Surely it’s not because you’re a bigoted fucker who says a lot of hate speech right? That would be ridiculous
Checked your comments just to be sure I wasn’t way off base and holy shit I wasn’t xD defending hate speech against black people, defending trump being on the ballot, saying the government should never do anything about hateful ideologies. You’re the scum of the earth, I hope your fascist ass gets put in a camp by the people you think are defending free speech
Is this a joke? In one of your recent comments you’re using the word Zionist negatively. That would already be considered hate speech somewhere.
using the word Zionist negatively. That would already be considered hate speech somewhere.
Which is also bullshit. Zionism is a political ideology, not an ethnicity. In fact, failing to make that distinction is antisemitism, as is the “Israel = Jewish people in general” bullshit that genocide deniers also use to silence dissent.
“Some people incorrectly call me a bigot, therefore nothing should ever be done about bigotry ever.” Grow the fuck up
I’m talking about the state, not whatever it is you choose to do in your personal capacity. I don’t care what you call me. I care if the state labels me something that they can jail me for. This article is about the state labeling pro-Palestine solidarity as extremist. I can’t speak for you, but I don’t think that the state should have the right to quell that speech. If you do, then I think we have fundamentally different philosophies.
I’m 1000% against governments labeling criticism of Israel or support for Gaza hate speech too, but ffs the problem here isn’t that the government should just allow all hate speech all the time. If you think a republican’s right to say I’m a groomer and call for my execution/lynching is good or more important than my safety you can go fuck yourself (edited phrasing a bit)
Calling for violence against anyone should be illegal imo. But yes that includes things like telling people to punch nazis.
Otherwise if they actually do convince people you’re a groomer they’ll think it’s ok to punch you too. “Group x is an exception” or “subject matter y isn’t protected” is the problem, not disallowing certain rhethorics.
Hey look, it’s a cishet white guy who thinks his opinion on hate speech is relevant!
Punching Nazis will always be necessary and based, no matter what a spineless centrist on the internet has to say about it
TIL the government is some people
hate speech is a different thing from the government’s definition of extremist groups.
k
‘Don’t fight Nazis because what if Nazis call you the Nazis’ remains a shallow and useless argument.
Bad faith can abuse anything. If we avoided doing things because someone, somewhere, eventually, might twist it around and pretend their horseshit is the same thing, we would be absolutely paralyzed.
I’m not talking about what you do in your personal capacity. I’m talking about the state and it’s monopoly on violence. I don’t care if a Nazi calls me a Nazi. I do care if the state labels me a subversive and uses its collective authority to jail me.
So never arrest anyone, because it might happen for bad reasons. Yeah? Recognizing intolerable abuses of power and also wanting power used appropriately is a contradiction somehow. Fighting any problem via the state is bad because what if they lie and fight not-that.
Seems we’re at an impasse.
Not really, you’re just wrong. Or at least applying your clever-feeling rationale too narrowly. The same assholes who will “label you a subversive” are just as likely to “label you a terrorist.” Does that mean the state should avoid fighting terrorism… just in case?
This is barely a hypothetical, given the insanity of GWB-era anti-terrorism bullshit. People against that counterfactual abuse of innocents, under color of law, were not generally against having laws. Are you saying they should have been? Because I’m not seeing much daylight between “some dipshits will redefine what hateful means” and “some dipshits will redefine what dangerous means.” Or what violent means. Or what harmful means. Or whatever your standard is, for when the state should do a thing.
I really have to highlight what an aggravating demand for effort this reply was. It offers nothing. It could be used anywhere. It does not demonstrate so much as having read what the other party wrote. It’s an erudite version of “bless your heart.”
Your restraint in not downvoting them is impressive. Some people are simply incapable of reflection, I suppose.
They never do understand, no matter how many times you tell them.
Suddenly, being against freedom of speech is okay if you’re cracking down on speech you don’t like. WTF is going on?
Hasn’t that always been the case on the far right? Isn’t that, like, almost part of the definition at this point?
Same thing that happened before a certain German dude with a mustache got elected 100 years ago…
We went from 0 to CCP in half a year. Good bye free speech we hardly believed in ye.
It’s been a lot longer tha half a year my freind.
Yeah the banning of protests happen right after Brexit if I recall correctly
Removed by mod
Attack the ideas, not the users. Removed.
Governments only tolerate the right to protest as long as you aren’t actually protesting something they don’t want to change.
Removed by mod
maybe to prevent being identified? If the UK is broadening its powers to silence protesters like this, even being photographed as part of a movement of quote unquote “violence, hatred or intolerance” could be enough to face fines, arrest, or other social consequences.
