I would rather deal with haters than live in a society where nobody, even haters, can speak their mind.
5
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
7 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
They spread ideological hate around and amplify its impact, leading in some cases to genocide. That act of spreading hate needs to be stamped out, but possession and proliferation of the original documents containing that hate should also be stamped on just as hard. The reason that we have a problem is that some primary hate is tolerated by the law. Make the primary hate unavailable and it will no longer have power over anyone.
David_Cooper
Level 7
Dec 15, 2018
0
it is possible to let people, even haters speak their minds and still draw the line at giving orders for violence. that's not speaking one's mind. a public speaker who has whipped a crowd into a frenzy is one thing. that speaker's then saying "all right guys, let's go beat up some [insert minority here]" is different. a husband on the phone with a friend saying "i hate my wife" is one thing. the same husband saying to the friend "i'll give you ten grand to murder my wife" is different. it's nice and easy to see things in black and white and say everyone should speak their minds no matter what" but then one has to define what is and what is not speaking one's mind. nice for you that you'd rather deal with haters. maybe people who get beaten up or the loved ones of people who get killed because of what someone says feel differently about it.
g
genessa
Level 8
Dec 15, 2018
2
Exactly but with one major rule applied. I don’t care if you speak your mind as long as it’s coming from your mind and not from those for whom you follow.
48thRonin
Level 8
Dec 15, 2018
1
where it's coming from is important but should not be the determining factor when it comes to our rights to speak. the determined factor should be where it's going, not where it's coming from. if someone wants to parrot someone else's thoughts, that's sad but should not be illegal. if someone wants to incite violence, that's a whole different ballgame.
g
@genessa I didn’t say that anything should be illegal.
I’m not a liberal I don’t believe in shutting people or that words should be banned but instead met with intellectual retorts and maybe then some open base communication to determine as to whether or not those who use certain words or even inciting language actually understand what and why.
But what i do mean is that if someone as you put it parrots only the words and phrases of other people then they’re quite possibly lacking the full understanding of both sides of an issue and be dismissed as either as a person who’s intentions aren’t to communicate but to disrupt any ability of other people to actually communicate.
That’s what I meant
@48thRonin of course they are and i understand. and you're right to that extent. but as far as hate speech goes, we are talking about freedom of speech and where, if anywhere, to draw the line, not as individuals and how to respond as individuals, but as a country, and how to respond, if at all, legally.
g
@genessa Ok but here’s a really question to ask.
If you live in a country, city, town or neighborhood where “ hate speech “ is receptive shouldn’t the concern be as to why it’s receptive to begin with?
I’m just saying that if we were the society that we’re supposedly capable of we’d hear such speech and dismiss it as well as those who disperse such speech.
So instead of people reacting to the effects maybe we should focus the causes. But that’s just how I feel.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.