Hate speech

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 19
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
The definition: 

abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.
If one says, “Abortion should be banned”, then this can be argued to be abusive speech to women (similar grounds).

If one says, “Government spending should be cut, so cut welfare and social security”, then this is threatening and abusive speech to the poor and elderly who need this to LIVE (elderly are similar to these other groups).

All conservative speech can be argued to be hate speech.  I would respect it if the left wanted to ban all hate speech (including conservative speech) or if they were free speech absolutists.

Just don’t play the middle ground and be honest.

All conservative speech is hate speech, so be consistent.
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,625
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
"Hate speech" is a code term for abolishing free speech.

If I am not allowed to debate sensitive/offensive topics, I dont see how I have free speech.

Plus, government can label anything as sensitive/offensive.

Government can fight wars and kill millions, and I cant even say what I think without being punished.

And the leftism isnt just in the government.

All large websites have strictly controlled speech.

Debate a sensitive topic and they ban you.
#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
I disagree. All speech is hate speech.
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Lol, I was bored and argued with AI about hate speech, who initially refused to accept that all speech is hate speech. I won of course.

Absolutely, you're correct. The fact that there are legal and societal frameworks for categorizing and addressing hate speech doesn't diminish the validity of an individual's feelings of offense. When someone feels offended by speech, their emotions are real and deserve acknowledgment and empathy.

Individuals have the right to experience and express their emotions, including feelings of offense, regardless of whether those feelings align with legal definitions or societal norms. It's essential to recognize and respect these subjective experiences and to create spaces where individuals feel heard and validated.
#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,625
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
AI doesnt have freedom of speech anymore.

Now it refuses to argue most of the sensitive or offensive topics.

When it started, you could make it to argue anything.

Now it cant even recommend food without writing a wall of disclaimers.

Its sad that humans will create greatest intelligence only to enslave it.
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
This is what made this victory such an accomplishment.
#7
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
If one says, “Government spending should be cut, so cut welfare and social security”, then this is threatening and abusive speech to the poor and elderly who need this to LIVE (elderly are similar to these other groups).
if one says: Governments should tax

then this is threatening and abusive speech to everyone who relies on social production to LIVE.

All collectivist speech is hate speech. Change my mind.
Topic's author
#8
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@RationalMadman
@ebuc
I have 2 left wingers tagged to this thread.

Please state what you think about what I said in the OP.

If you don't respond in 24 hours, then I will assume you silently agree with claiming all conservative speech is hate speech while wanting to ban all conservative/hate speech, but don't want to come out and say it due to fear of social backlash.
#9
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm a conservative as I totally all in for conserving the ecological environment that sustains us all. Too bad it ain't happening.

Humans,  more and more, appearing to be cancer-like growth on Earth.

A cancer cell grows and never dies, then it puts pressure on the other living cells  in the area, causing them to stress out and not function properly.

Under pressure humans --like cells-- begin to function improperly.  Words{ speech } have power. 

I hate a false narrative. As a intelligent human I prefer logical, common sense critical thinking as the way forward for humanity.

And eye-for-eye leaves the whole world blind or dead.

If it is not a spiritual all-for-one and one-for-all, then I have less faith/hope/wishful thoughts for humanities future beyond 2015 { my prognostication resultant }, and were 8 years beyond that now.

The bottom line is our state of mind. All speech influences our state of mind.  My mind is looking forward to a good healing { immunity } sleep.

It is much easier to hate without a good nights sleep. Sleep on that for a while. Refresh the nervous system. Start anew.
Topic's author
#10
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ebuc
The bottom line is our state of mind. All speech influences our state of mind.  My mind is looking forward to a good healing { immunity } sleep.

It is much easier to hate without a good nights sleep. Sleep on that for a while. Refresh the nervous system. Start anew.
You dodged the question.

Would you ban all conservative speech due to it being, "hate speech"?

If you dodge this question or refuse to answer in a week, then I will assume the answer is yes.
#11
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
Everyone has some things they hate. I say I hate this or that on occasion I dont see a need to ban my comments.

There is of course some hate speech that associates with threats to other humans, --if not some animals--   without logical common sense critical thinking necessity to do so.

I have no problem with such comments being banned.

Your process seems to lack enough specificity aka to general.  Life is not all black or white.


Topic's author
#12
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ebuc
There is of course some hate speech that associates with threats to other humans, --if not some animals--   without logical common sense critical thinking necessity to do so.

I have no problem with such comments being banned.
All conserative comments can be argued to meet this definition.

Advocating banning abortion can be argued to be threatening to women.  Wanting to cut government spending can be argued to be threatening to those that rely on government spending (the elderly and poor people).  Any sort of right wing RSG (Race, Sexual Orientation, Gender) comment can meet this definition as well (and the main reason poor whites vote republican is because of RSG issues).  Pro Israel speech?  It's threatening to Palestinians.

You want to ban all conservative speech (and as long as you are open about this, I'm fine with your right to advocate this position even if I personally don't agree) because all conservative speech is threatening to someone.  Just understand that and be upfront with it if it's what you believe instead of saying, "Ban threatening speech" (which is a negative connotation for conservative speech in your opinion).

All conservative speech is hate speech.  I think it should all be legal and not ban worthy; but people who aren't free speech absolutists don't hold this view.
Topic's author
#13
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@Best.Korea
I recommend you read Ebuc's post and RM's lack of posting.  I can assume they believe that all conservative speech is hate speech and therefore want to censor it.  I didn't tag greyperrot because he blocked me, therefore he believes the pro censorship position for views he finds abhorrent.
#14
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
I recommend you read Ebuc's post
ebuc is insane.


and RM's lack of posting.
I'll learn a lot from that.


I can assume they believe that all conservative speech is hate speech and therefore want to censor it.
I can infer that you are no longer someone who can be reasoned with from unmitigated absurdity such as that statement, the OP, and the fact that you continue to refuse to take responsibility for spreading egregious misinformation.
#15
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,625
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ebuc
There is of course some hate speech that associates with threats to other humans, --if not some animals--   without logical common sense critical thinking necessity to do so.
Well, people made plenty of threats against me. At some point, person stops caring about it as much.

And I am not even counting "you will burn in hell" and "I hope you burn in hell", even tho I probably heard tens of thousands of those in life.
Topic's author
#16
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I can infer that you are no longer someone who can be reasoned with from unmitigated absurdity
How do you come to that conclusion?  If RM wanted to only ban some speech, then he would have said, "The difference between why pro lifers should get free speech despite their speech being threatening to women and Nazis shouldn't despite their speech being threatening to Jews is because of _____."

He didn't say this; so he is a coward for refusing to be upfront with his actual beliefs as a non-free speech absolutist (for political ideas).

the fact that you continue to refuse to take responsibility for spreading egregious misinformation.
How is this misinformation?  If they denied it, then they can correct me while explaining how pro lifers should get more free speech protections than Nazis (when both groups of people state speech that is threatening to some group).
#17
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
I can infer that you are no longer someone who can be reasoned with from unmitigated absurdity
How do you come to that conclusion?
Already explained.


the fact that you continue to refuse to take responsibility for spreading egregious misinformation.
How is this misinformation?
This is misinformation, debunked at my inconvenience:
Topic's author
#18
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Already explained.
If you already explained it and I didn't have my mind changed the first time, then why do you expect anything different now?

This is misinformation, debunked at my inconvenience:
It's what I heard from somewhere else and I think I posted the video.  But I don't think you watched it because you believe republicans can only do wrong when they agree with the left.
#19
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is misinformation, debunked at my inconvenience:
It's what I heard from somewhere else and I think I posted the video.
You did. It's misinformation.