Hate Speech

notimp · Dec 19, 2018

On the "should (some) form of hate speech be outlawed" topic.

We actually have such laws in germany - where using Nazi slogans, symbols, or historical revisionism of what happened in those days, is actually outlawed.

And I have to admit, I've never been able to make myself think, that that was a bad thing. (It has two functions basically, first making the lives of the victims of that regime, in country, at least somewhat bareable - second, to have a cut towards the pull those symbols and speeches had in the past, but it also allowed for society to not speak about those things at all (which lead to a minor "revolution" in the sixties, where the younger generation confronted their parents/the power elites)).

But this is held up as an exception to the rule. Its made special, by no one even attempting to get other stuff placed near that mode of censorship. So it hasnt become a slippery slope - that ended in a totalitarian vision of society.

Would I trust todays SJWs to do something along those lines - benefiting society at large, by REALLY - and I mean REALLY making sure, that no one talkes about certain topics? Hell no.

But I have to admit, that it can work in principal. Even in democratic societies. Its just that I dont wish that scenario onto anyone. (As indeed "thought crime", is a related concept.)

arcanine · Dec 19, 2018

notimp said:
We actually have such laws in germany - where using Nazi slogans, symbols, or historical revisionism of what happened in those days, is actually outlawed.

How is "use" defined in this law? Are you allowed to, for example, portray the Nazi symbol for the purpose of education? Are you allowed to discuss Nazism? Or is it literally the case that you're not allowed to even mention it? Because...

notimp said:
it also allowed for society to not speak about those things at all ... making sure, that no one talkes about certain topics

... is really fucking dangerous.

Xzi · Dec 19, 2018

arcanine said:
No, the radical left is more insidious than that. We now live in a world where "misgendering" somebody is a criminal offence, even if it was unintentional.

We don't live in a world where that's the case. It might be like town law somewhere I guess, but don't exaggerate.

arcanine said:
Oh by the way: Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were all socialists. So don't tell me people on the radical left don't kill people who don't conform to their ideas.

That's disingenuous as fuck and you know it. All three are more commonly known as militaristic right-wing despots. Neo-nazis don't tend to vote Democrat. And none of them were Socialists. They just used Socialism as the carrot, and Fascism/fear of being murdered by the state as the stick.

notimp · Dec 19, 2018

arcanine said:
How is "use" defined in this law?

Good question. I believe the most notable part of it is public speech or symbols in those cases are outlawed, so if someone can prove that you did that - or used that, you can be indicted. I write can - because, there is sort of a leeway space, where police can do the usual slap on the fingers, now - never do that again, and now scram. But they will stop even the attempt in any case.

(Of course recently we also have had popular rightwing uprisings, so - they might not walz them down, if they are in the minority (bad idea), but they have stopped demonstrations for that reason, and as it is also universally denounced (and I mean REALLY denounced) - no one gets up and finds that offensive.)

Also - if you are hording that stuff (Nazi devotionalia) in private, and people find out, you'll be in trouble. Same for selling it, ...

So its really somewhat an all encompassing law/social taboo.

Witch also births the some idiots might think its "cool" because its outlawed transmutations... But then, since it is such a universally accepted taboo, you never get a critical mass there...

For the most part, we hear it being exercised, when some political actor on the regional level thinks he has to talk to "his peoples" feels on facebook again.

Ah, and talking about facebook, they also remove that content from german "streams", while they dont on US platforms I believe. We made them do that.

arcanine · Dec 19, 2018

Xzi said:
We don't live in a world where that's the case. It might be like town law somewhere I guess, but don't exaggerate.

Well, ok, more accurately we live in a world where those laws exist. I have no idea what "town law" means, but here in the UK, this is nation-wide legislation.

Xzi said:
That's disingenuous as fuck and you know it. All three are more commonly known as militaristic right-wing despots.

Uh, no. They were totalitarian dictators, but they were absolutely socialist. Didn't you know that Stalin was a Marxist? Or that Mussolini wrote communist literature and was a prominent member of the Italian communist party? Or that Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party?

Xzi said:
none of them were Socialists. They just used Socialism as a carrot, and Fascism/fear of being murdered by the state as the stick.

Are you serious? You do know, right, that just as one example, Stalin claimed ownership of everything on behalf of the state and then meted it out to the population, and those who didn't think this was a great idea were thrown in the gulag, or just left to starve to death? Or that both Mussolini and Hitler espoused socialist views? Sure they moved to the right subsequently, but that's not the point. They used socialist doctrine to coerce the population, and only when they had control started killing people who didn't like it.

Xzi · Dec 19, 2018

arcanine said:
Well, ok, more accurately we live in a world where those laws exist. I have no idea what "town law" means, but here in the UK, this is nation-wide legislation.

Well that's Democracy for you I suppose. Imperfect as it might be, your country chose that for itself, nobody else chose it for you. I seriously doubt the punishment is that harsh regardless.

arcanine said:
Are you serious? You do know, right, that just as one example, Stalin claimed ownership of everything on behalf of the state and then meted it out to the population, and those who didn't think this was a great idea were thrown in the gulag, or just left to starve to death? Or that both Mussolini and Hitler espoused socialist views? Sure they moved to the right subsequently, but that's not the point. They used socialist doctrine to coerce the population, and only when they had control started killing people who didn't like it.

Obviously you don't understand Socialism in the least if you think it's compatible with one person controlling all the money and power. Stalin/Mussolini/Hitler never ruled over Socialist nations, they were purely dictatorships. Like I said, they used the promise of Socialism to keep workers happy, but ultimately it was never about shifting the focus of power to the workers. Those men were "Socialist" in the same way that modern-day Republicans are "Christian." Almost entirely lip service.

arcanine · Dec 19, 2018

Xzi said:
Well that's Democracy for you I suppose. Imperfect as it might be, your country chose that for itself, nobody else chose it for you. I seriously doubt the punishment is that harsh regardless.

The country didn't choose it. There was no public vote on it. It's a small lobby pushing for legislative change. Placing this responsibility in the hands of the population as a whole "because democracy" is slightly overstating the power of the vote. You know we have to wait several years between elections, and in the interim, people can do things that are not within the control of the population.

Xzi said:
Obviously you don't understand Socialism in the least if you think it's compatible with one person controlling all the money and power.

Not one person, but one entity. How do you think Marx intended that commodities would be shared equally across the population? What, people aren't selfish and greedy and desperate? Of course they are. You have to have a political superstructure to take ownership of all of that and then share it out. And, you know, murder anyone who wants to keep their stuff.

Xzi said:
Stalin/Mussolini/Hitler never ruled over Socialist nations, they were purely dictatorships.

Dictatorship and socialism are not mutually exclusive. A dictator is just someone who has total control. That control can take any form.

Xzi said:
Like I said, they used the promise of Socialism to keep workers happy, but ultimately it was never about shifting the focus of power to the workers. Those men were "Socialist" in the same way that modern-day Republicans are "Christian." Almost entirely lip service.

Except the parts about seizing commodities from the people and then redistributing them, which is socialism through and through.

Xzi · Dec 19, 2018

arcanine said:
The country didn't choose it. There was no public vote on it. It's a small lobby pushing for legislative change. Placing this responsibility in the hands of the population as a whole "because democracy" is slightly overstating the power of the vote. You know we have to wait several years between elections, and in the interim, people can do things that are not within the control of the population.

Well, it's representative Democracy, and like I said, still far from perfect. You guys have several major political parties, right? Not sure how they all agreed on the misgendering thing.

arcanine said:
Dictatorship and socialism are not mutually exclusive. A dictator is just someone who has total control. That control can take any form.

You're correct that they aren't mutually exclusive, which is why dictatorships don't have any issue taking root in Capitalist nations or (Banana) Republics either.

arcanine said:
Except the parts about seizing commodities from the people and then redistributing them, which is socialism through and through.

True, but we already do that in America to a lesser degree in the form of taxes and social spending. The only problem is that the vast majority of money always gets redistributed to the top instead of the bottom.

arcanine · Dec 19, 2018

Xzi said:
Well, it's representative Democracy, and like I said, still far from perfect. You guys have several major political parties, right? Not sure how they all agreed on the misgendering thing.

Because they're all too spineless to stand up to these rad-left miscreants.

Xzi said:
You're correct that they aren't mutually exclusive, which is why dictatorships don't have any issue taking root in Capitalist nations or (Banana) Republics either.

Quite. But I wasn't arguing that only socialism is compatible with despotism. I totally agree that it can (and does) exist in capitalist nations also.

Xzi said:
True, but we already do that in America to a lesser degree in the form of taxes. The only problem is that the vast majority of money always gets redistributed to the top instead of the bottom.

Well, taxation is a necessary evil in my opinion. If we want to live in democratic societies (which most of us would agree that we do) then somebody has to be in control. And that control requires resources, and those resources cost money. So yes, we have to surrender a proportion of our wealth to the state. But we get to keep most of it for ourselves. Sure, there is always going to be work to do to improve the usage and redistribution of tax money, but I don't think that makes tax a bad thing as a concept.

We're off-topic here, so lets try to refocus. I made the point that hate-speech has been redefined (in some places) to include anything the "victim" doesn't like the sound of; you responded that there is a limit to what someone from the left will do in response to that, and that it's only the right who will enact violence in response; I responded with examples of people who at least start out as radical leftists and carried out horrific acts of violence. Also, it's not difficult to see instances of violence carried out by left-wing campaigners. There is violence on both sides, but I've seen situations where leftist demonstrators have instigated violence against peaceful right-wingers, as well as the opposite. And aside from the violence aspect, who do we see campaigning for free speech to be limited? It's not the right, but the snowflake left. And as much as I'd like to say that the views of those people are irrelevant, it's not true. The mainstream media is reflecting these views and attitudes all the time, and it's seeping into legislation.

Jayro · Dec 19, 2018

At the end of the day, speech is just words. Grow some thicker skin and fuck your feelings, snowflakes.

SG854 · Dec 19, 2018

Jayro said:
At the end of the day, speech is just words. Grow some thicker skin and fuck your feelings, snowflakes.

Sticks and Stones can break my Bones but Words can never Hurt me.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I support hate speech. It’s funny.

Xzi · Dec 19, 2018

arcanine said:
We're off-topic here, so lets try to refocus. I made the point that hate-speech has been redefined (in some places) to include anything the "victim" doesn't like the sound of; you responded that there is a limit to what someone from the left will do in response to that, and that it's only the right who will enact violence in response; I responded with examples of people who at least start out as radical leftists and carried out horrific acts of violence. Also, it's not difficult to see instances of violence carried out by left-wing campaigners. There is violence on both sides, but I've seen situations where leftist demonstrators have instigated violence against peaceful right-wingers, as well as the opposite. And aside from the violence aspect, who do we see campaigning for free speech to be limited? It's not the right, but the snowflake left. And as much as I'd like to say that the views of those people are irrelevant, it's not true. The mainstream media is reflecting these views and attitudes all the time, and it's seeping into legislation.

I concede that extremists and violence can come from either side. It's not usually a big deal if extremist groups are just beating the shit out of each other. I'm not sure about there, however, but in America, deadly attacks on innocent victims have come almost exclusively from right-wing extremists lately. 'PC' culture is a problem that needs reigned in, but it's not life-threatening. Now, when the president starts attacking freedom of the press, then you know you've got a big fucking problem based on historical context alone. I don't think even Trump is stupid enough to try to repeal the first amendment, but he did question the legality of 'Saturday Night Live' recently, so who knows.

But I digress: the problem isn't necessarily hate speech in isolated incidents. The problem is normalization of and de-sensitization to hate speech. Hitler's rise to power and subsequent consolidation of power didn't happen over night. The hearts and minds of the people had to be slowly poisoned against a singular scapegoat first.

barronwaffles · Dec 19, 2018

Xzi said:
The hearts and minds of the people had to be slowly poisoned against a singular scapegoat first.

Hitlers rise to power has very little to do with scapegoating any particular group.

Xzi · Dec 19, 2018

barronwaffles said:
Hitlers rise to power has very little to do with scapegoating any particular group.

True, that was more the 'consolidation of power' part, but it's semantics. Despots throughout history have always needed a boogeyman to turn the native/majority population against.

notimp · Dec 19, 2018

Lets bring another aspect into it. You dont use hate speech, if you are clever.

As in never.

Not even as a demagog (then you are only hinting at certain symbols).

Reason: You'll never reach the biggest audiences in the proverbial political center.

So what I (as actually more than left leaning) am actually "mad about" in terms of the SJW movement, is, that their "targets" already are oppressed minorities.

Remember that they have to get into those battles, about "whose actually more oppresed" (repressed.

) as a result of that?

Thats basically not touching any actual "big" societal issues, but trying to make your name on them social media streets, for being the toughest bully around. Sorry, the most oppressed victim. All them other victims dont even come close...

Then again, as a result you can majorly benefit the (lg)btq community (lg) in brackets, because they have reached societal acceptance, before you reached the stage. Which is wonderful, dont get me wrong - but in unfair comparison to the "Big picture stuff" - it hardly matters at all.

As in - those where "issue groups" so small, that every political movement didnt care about them, because it just hadnt gotten the people base.

And as a result, the president can now make one comment on "cracking down on that progress" - and undo all your "work" - because no one actually really cares (slow attrition route of winning over societies, vs doctrine).

From the point of view of a real person in power, I'd love me my SJWs - they dont cost me anything. They can be outraged about a whole bunch of stuff, that I don't care about either way. Now thats an opposition I don't even have to manage..

Hey, I sponsor a whole entire college wing, just for that!

But them people are so horrible, and repressive - yes, but they dont have power, they just ignorrant. You dont fight the ignorrant, you fight for the ignorrant to be able to get access to education. You fight misuse of power structures. If you reached a left leaning college. Thats what your student years are for. Not petting emotional support animals. (Well ...

)

barronwaffles · Dec 19, 2018

Xzi said:
True, that was more the 'consolidation of power' part, but it's semantics. Despots throughout history have always needed a boogeyman to turn the native/majority population against.

Even his consolidation of power was almost exclusively based on political maneuvering internal to the party and 'playing' the system as it existed - exploitation of what were preexisting hostilities towards particular ethno-religious groups and other minorities among the majority of the population at the time play virtually no part.

Clydefrosch · Dec 19, 2018

isn't it pretty much logically proven that tolerance for intolerance leads to the destruction of tollerance?

Xzi · Dec 19, 2018

Clydefrosch said:
isn't it pretty much logically proven that tollerance for intollerance leads to the destruction of tollerance?

You are correct. There's a neat little infographic about this:

arcanine · Dec 19, 2018

I think it would be helpful if we as a society could define what we actually mean by "tolerance". I will "tolerate" pretty much anything as long as it isn't harming me or unduly impinging on me. But it seems that these days that isn't enough, and "tolerate" has come to mean "embrace". Which means that failing to embrace something renders you "intolerant". Some people need to realise that you don't have to like something in order to tolerate it.

Xzi · Dec 19, 2018

arcanine said:
I think it would be helpful if we as a society could define what we actually mean by "tolerance". I will "tolerate" pretty much anything as long as it isn't harming me or unduly impinging on me. But it seems that these days that isn't enough, and "tolerate" has come to mean "embrace". Which means that failing to embrace something renders you "intolerant". Some people need to realise that you don't have to like something in order to tolerate it.

Absolutely, which is why this specifies 'movements that preach intolerance and persecution' as the only ones which should be banned by law. You have to put in effort and be outspoken about it to be intolerant. If you just keep your head down and go about your day, nobody is going to randomly accuse you of being a homophobe just because you walked by a gay pride parade without dancing. Tolerance is almost always the easier path.

Hate Speech

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

MediCat USB Dev

Hail Mary

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum