In Defense of Hate Speech

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

to defeat our enemies, we must respect them.

if you wish to end hate, then leave it alone.

how very zen of you.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: InTheLight

The great thing about free speech is it is up to you, not me.

Your offense is not a reason for me to stop speaking.

But, it is a reason for you to change your delivery style of the message in a way that others will allow it to be heard in a different light, perhaps even open up a discussion.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Appreciate the offer. I may take you up on that because you are very well read.

Just a disclaimer, it's only incitement to violence I oppose, not hate speech.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

to defeat our enemies, we must respect them.

if you wish to end hate, then leave it alone.

how very zen of you.

Not quite. As I mentioned, we destroy speech with more speech.

a reply to: InTheLight

No one knows what lies in a man's mind nor his heart.

I am not responsible for someone who's level is off a full bubble.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

to defeat our enemies, we must respect them.

if you wish to end hate, then leave it alone.

how very zen of you.

Not quite. As I mentioned, we destroy speech with more speech.

Not so easy to do when the person inciting violence with the impressionable won't meet you with them in the market place of ideas...

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: InTheLight

No one knows what lies in a man's mind nor his heart.

I am not responsible for someone who's level is off a full bubble.

But you are responsible if you want to deliver your message successfully to all people of all levels.

a reply to: InTheLight

Responsible for inciting a riot is a criminal offense.


Saying "kill the QB" while watching a football game does not mean you are responsible for a nut job doing it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

to defeat our enemies, we must respect them.

if you wish to end hate, then leave it alone.

how very zen of you.

Not quite. As I mentioned, we destroy speech with more speech.

not quite. destroying is not the object. i am imagining in my head a village full of people scaring a roaring tiger off by singing very loudly. if you kill the tiger, you only prove you are a stronger monster than the tiger is. this means that the next tiger will be in its full right to kill someone from the village as you have set the rules to that effect. but if you show the tiger you are not afraid and are not alone, if you convince the tiger to hunt somewhere else. there is no offense given, but no crap taken. that is victory.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: InTheLight

Responsible for inciting a riot is a criminal offense.


Saying "kill the QB" while watching a football game does not mean you are responsible for a nut job doing it.

We are not on the same page.

a reply to: InTheLight

Sweet, so you're against personal responsibility and free speech.

a reply to: InTheLight

You disagree?

That's your OK.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: InTheLight

Sweet, so you're against personal responsibility and free speech.

Nope, you are off track.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: InTheLight

You disagree?

That's your OK.

Nope, you missed the mark.

It is a problem when SJW's believe that the right to free speech ends with them being offended. Usually faux offense at something that should be considered innocolous.

I just heard audio of a University of Michigan student berating a store owner because of a sign in the store that was pro Isreal. The store owner is Jewish. Instead of shopping somewere else, she decided to let him know how offensive he is.
And post it online.
I know, just some random anecdote right?
Except it's not.
It's what they do.
PC gone wild.
Anything that can be considered offensive, shall be considered offensive.
Even if noboby is offended.

a reply to: InTheLight

I tend to err on the side of freedom.

There are exceptions that are well know-yelling fire in a theater......

I don't see what the point you are making is.

originally posted by: c2oden
It is a problem when SJW's believe that the right to free speech ends with them being offended. Usually faux offense at something that should be considered innocolous.

I just heard audio of a University of Michigan student berating a store owner because of a sign in the store that was pro Isreal. The store owner is Jewish. Instead of shopping somewere else, she decided to let him know how offensive he is.
And post it online.
I know, just some random anecdote right?
Except it's not.
It's what they do.
PC gone wild.
Anything that can be considered offensive, shall be considered offensive.
Even if noboby is offended.

That is called 'reverse racism' and why not call it what it is and loudly?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: InTheLight

I tend to err on the side of freedom.

There are exceptions that are well know-yelling fire in a theater......

I don't see what the point you are making is.

No you do not know what I am trying to relay...this is too much hard work, sorry. Maybe you will clue in later on, on subsequent posts.

Speech and action are two separate things. Not sure if this gas been said but....don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Seems fitting.

a reply to: InTheLight

Or maybe we disagree.

I think you want people who say go kill that M-fer to be held responsible for a murder.

There are laws on the books for that and jury trials.

It is a messy messy ugly business this Freedom. But to clamp down on it would quickly effect freedom of Religion-Freedom of assembly-freedom of.......