Personally I oppose censorship in almost all it's forms including hate speech laws (banning child porn being one example where I can see redeeming value in censorship).
Is higher education = University or is higher education = High School?
I think you need censorship at each level, just a lot less at the University. (The example you gave is a good one).
Edit: the examples given in the videos are ridiculously wrong. I think it's ok to censor illegal things such as hate speech, but the problem gets into how broad you define hate speech. In many cases it's defined broader than any court would uphold on legal grounds.
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Is higher education = University or is higher education = High School?
I think you need censorship at each level, just a lot less at the University. (The example you gave is a good one).
Edit: the examples given in the videos are ridiculously wrong. I think it's ok to censor illegal things such as hate speech, but the problem gets into how broad you define hate speech. In many cases it's defined broader than any court would uphold on legal grounds.
Illegal really. Not in America. Censorship of "hate" speech is bad because it vague and used to silence minority opinion.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Wow, we've taken this social justice BS way too far. I mean, it's great to be tolerant of other people, but part of living in a free society is having a thick enough skin to survive.
I teach at the university level, and I had a student last semester who wrote on my evaluation form, "As a WHITE MALE, you need to give more attention to women and minorities in the classroom". None of my other students felt this way, but I take any criticism I receive seriously, and put thought into this response. Anyways, the reason I bring this up is because I feel very singled out, because being a white male is not something i can control. I was born as a white male, and I don't think it's anybody's right to say that my actions should be dependent on factors outside my control, and i shouldn't have to censor myself just because of my race or sex.
anyways my point is that if you want to live in a free society, you have to respect that EVERYONE has rights, and some of those will infringe on yours. people have the right to speak, you might get offended (per my example above). people have the right to vote, your candidate might not win. people have the right to bear arms, folks are going to get shot.
living in a free society demands that we all approach these things RATIONALLY, and realize that individuals have to be mature in order to live in such a society (especially when in close proximity). Unfortunately this isn't the status quo, and people are grossly misinformed regarding concepts of justice, equality, and entitlement. Or maybe they choose not to think of them (cognitive dissonance). Regardless people need to grow the heck up.
My student said something hurtful to me, but i'm not going to sue them or anything because i'm a grown man, who understands that "that's just like, your opinion, man".
(in case it wasn't obvious, i abhor censorship EXCEPT in the case where speech is demonstrably FALSE or UNGROUNDED, i.e. teaching creationism, or impersonating a soldier to get benefits, lying in court testimony, or false advertising).
(in case it wasn't obvious, i abhor censorship EXCEPT in the case where speech is demonstrably FALSE or UNGROUNDED, i.e. teaching creationism, or impersonating a soldier to get benefits, lying in court testimony, or false advertising).
I guess you prove the point . . . you hate it except when it is supporting what you believe in . . . like evolution.
(in case it wasn't obvious, i abhor censorship EXCEPT in the case where speech is demonstrably FALSE or UNGROUNDED, i.e. teaching creationism, or impersonating a soldier to get benefits, lying in court testimony, or false advertising).
I guess you prove the point . . . you hate it except when it is supporting what you believe in . . . like evolution.
there's a profound difference between allowing all voices to be heard, and giving all voices equal weight. censorship can be either - complete, or partial. suppressing the expression of an idea is still censorship. in the case you mentioned, teaching science requires substantial evidence (see: several centuries of epistemology).
also 'i hate it except when it benefits me' is human nature, it's why we have laws that are (hopefully) impartial to all that crap. we're all flawed, man.
I have to turn a suspicious eye on the source of this video right out of the gate, because I looked at his channel and he's got a bunch of "Obama's trying to take over the world" stuff posted there. That's an "agenda" red flag for me and at the very least, the claims in question need to be multiply independently sourced.
That being said, if it's true that a university actually censured a student for "openly reading a book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject," then that is not only appalling but actively inimical to the very concept of education -- so much so that whoever perpetrated it literally cannot logically carry the title of educator.
Quote from the87th »
I teach at the university level, and I had a student last semester who wrote on my evaluation form, "As a WHITE MALE, you need to give more attention to women and minorities in the classroom". None of my other students felt this way, but I take any criticism I receive seriously, and put thought into this response. Anyways, the reason I bring this up is because I feel very singled out, because being a white male is not something i can control. I was born as a white male, and I don't think it's anybody's right to say that my actions should be dependent on factors outside my control, and i shouldn't have to censor myself just because of my race or sex.
Welcome to postmodern liberal "philosophy." Expecting consistency out of people who believe it is really nothing more than an exercise in just how red you want the imprint from the ensuing constant facepalming to be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
(in case it wasn't obvious, i abhor censorship EXCEPT in the case where speech is demonstrably FALSE or UNGROUNDED, i.e. teaching creationism, or impersonating a soldier to get benefits, lying in court testimony, or false advertising).
I guess you prove the point . . . you hate it except when it is supporting what you believe in . . . like evolution.
there's a profound difference between allowing all voices to be heard, and giving all voices equal weight. censorship can be either - complete, or partial. suppressing the expression of an idea is still censorship. in the case you mentioned, teaching science requires substantial evidence (see: several centuries of epistemology).
also 'i hate it except when it benefits me' is human nature, it's why we have laws that are (hopefully) impartial to all that crap. we're all flawed, man.
Don't forget . . . just because a belief may or may not be backed by knowledge, doesn't mean it isn't true. God is the One who wants choice.
Sad. This is the next level of politically correctness that spread across the country a couple decades ago. America has gone from a country of thick skinned, tough individuals to a bunch of whinny cry babies. Things in the country really need to change. Its getting to the point its almost embarrassing to be an American.
"Minority opinions" such as those of racists and homophobes, sure.
You really don't understand why hate speech is criminalised. It's because it's terrorism. Whenever someone stands up and talks about how black people are a plague on decent folk and is legally protected in doing so, it sends the message that such beliefs are legitimate and acceptable. It tells the targeted group that they are not safe in society, that there are those working actively to hurt them. The Holocaust did not begin with the gas chambers, you know, it culminated in them. It was preceded and fuelled by hate speech. When you vow "never again" you have to fully understand what it is you wish to never repeat or else you will fail.
That said, legislation regarding hate speech should definitely be analysed to see what it's really used for. We don't want it to turn out like anti-stalking laws in Britain being used against protesters or like anti-CP laws being used to monitor for simple piracy.
Just because we let Westborough baptist church shout nonsense does not mean it is legitimate or that anyone that lets them shout thinks it is legitimate. I hate hate speech laws because all they do is perpetuate the idea that certain groups are either unable to take the heat from a vocal stupid minority or that they need special protection because of their membership in a certain group. If I want to walk through a street and say that ******s are worthless lazy people, why should I be stopped? Could those homophobes claim hate speech against people calling them homophobes? All they are doing is following Jesus. Can fat people claim hate speech against other people making fun of them? It might really hurt their feelings and make them cry or even commit suicide? Or is it only hate speech when it goes against a group that has been historically oppressed?
Censorship of "hate" speech is bad because it vague and used to silence minority opinion.
"Minority opinions" such as those of racists and homophobes, sure.
Such as, but not limited to, those of racists and homophobes.
You forgot the underlined part, and its the underlined part that is a concern. "Hate Speech" is merely any speech that the people in power decide should be banned. It's a largely meaningless label.
Fortunately, in the US it *doesn't* get nearly as much credence as its analogue "think of the children".
No one commenting yet on how they're selling a book with the same title, etc? Not too mention intentionally caging words and details that imply dishonesty.
Just because we let Westborough baptist church shout nonsense does not mean it is legitimate or that anyone that lets them shout thinks it is legitimate.
It actually does mean that. Not opposing bigotry means that bigotry will be a stronger force in society than it otherwise would. Complicity, y'know.
Actually it means that we recognize their right to say and think whatever they want. If they want to believe that the US will collapse because of homosexuals... that is their prerogative. Just because they think that does not make it true and just because nobody violently stops them from saying it does not mean that everyone agrees with them. Arrest is violence. If you think people should suffer violence for saying things in a public setting that may hurt someone else's feelings, we have nothing to discuss. It does not matter how far off base they are, all thoughts and ideals have a right to be heard and must not be oppressed in public.
If you think people should suffer violence for saying things in a public setting that may hurt someone else's feelings,
Once again you show your total lack of understanding of the subject. Hate speech is not simply "'hurt feelings'". Hate speech is oppression. It is the first step on the path to genocide. If we are to take the struggle for social justice seriously, hate speech will not be allowed. By law or otherwise. It is liberalism of the highest order to think that the ideas that a society tolerates don't affect those who live in that society.
A Islamic person says homosexuality is a sin, the homosexual says that is hateful and intolerant. In response the Islamic man says calling his religion hateful is hate speech.
I can think of a thousand more examples but off the top of my head, this is a example of why banning 'hate speech' is sort of...circular.
Censorship of "hate" speech is bad because it vague and used to silence minority opinion.
"Minority opinions" such as those of racists and homophobes, sure.
You really don't understand why hate speech is criminalised. It's because it's terrorism. Whenever someone stands up and talks about how black people are a plague on decent folk and is legally protected in doing so, it sends the message that such beliefs are legitimate and acceptable. It tells the targeted group that they are not safe in society, that there are those working actively to hurt them. The Holocaust did not begin with the gas chambers, you know, it culminated in them. It was preceded and fuelled by hate speech. When you vow "never again" you have to fully understand what it is you wish to never repeat or else you will fail.
That said, legislation regarding hate speech should definitely be analysed to see what it's really used for. We don't want it to turn out like anti-stalking laws in Britain being used against protesters or like anti-CP laws being used to monitor for simple piracy.
First things first. The Holocost was fulled largely by the suppression of free speech of any dissenting opinion burning books, media that wasn't in line with the Nazi party ect. were suppressed and dealt with often violently. Nobody was allowed to say the Nazi party or Hitler was wrong, which is what made the hate speech propaganda effective. YOU WOULD BE VERY WELL SERVED IF YOU NEVER FORGET THIS.
"hate" speech =/= terrorism.
Terrorists often use "hate speech" but that doesn't make hate speech terrorism.
Hate Speech isn't limited too those things. But, here is a brake down of what happens with "hate speech" which is what makes the censorship of "hate" speech dangerous.
1. Person speaking - "potentially" a bigot. People who aren't bigots can attempt to show them what's wrong with their beliefs, truly hateful opinions get changed or the person that is a bigot is only able to speak to other bigots and because of this gets further entrenched in his potentially harmful views.
2. Person suppressing free "hate" speech- Is a bigot by every definition of the word.
3. Undecided Person hearing free(hate speech)- is able to hear both sides of an argument if and will choose the correct side. If "hate speech" is suppressed they only hear one side and will choose it right or wrong.
Any suppression of speech that doesn't directly cause "imminent danger" is a step towards some form of a dictatorship. Dictatorships are what allow hate speech to work be effective.
Just because we let Westborough baptist church shout nonsense does not mean it is legitimate or that anyone that lets them shout thinks it is legitimate.
It actually does mean that. Not opposing bigotry means that bigotry will be a stronger force in society than it otherwise would. Complicity, y'know.
Opposing bigotry via the removal of free speech is bigotry.
Bigotry
Noun plural
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
All it does is change the type of bigotry. The correct approach is to rationally convince the person they're wrong.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
If you think people should suffer violence for saying things in a public setting that may hurt someone else's feelings,
Once again you show your total lack of understanding of the subject. Hate speech is not simply "'hurt feelings'". Hate speech is oppression. It is the first step on the path to genocide. If we are to take the struggle for social justice seriously, hate speech will not be allowed. By law or otherwise. It is liberalism of the highest order to think that the ideas that a society tolerates don't affect those who live in that society.
Just because I may believe that all homosexuals will go to hell does not mean they are actively oppressed in society. It means that I dont like them. Similarly I can think that anyone that owns a dog has self esteem issues and needs to get real friends. Laws preventing me from voicing my opinion are exactly one of the things people came to America to get away from. Your slippery slope argument to genocide is more ridiculous than the slippery slope of having all free speech laws revoked and living in a North Korea style society where saying the wrong thing about the supreme leader could land you in prison.
Note: I actually have zero issue with homosexuals, blacks or mentally handicapped people but i think it is ridiculous that in casual conversation people expect other to not say ******, *** or ****** even as a direct quote. A radio station I listen to reads funny twitter posts as one of it's bits and has to replace the word ******, with ninja... does that really do anything to help black people not be oppressed?
I think its funny that so many of you feel that "hurtful" and "hateful" is the same thing. Just because someone says homosexuality is evil doesn't mean that it is hate speech. It becomes hate speech when the goal of the speech is to create violence.
@bocephus
You're just now embarrassed to be an American? Because of censorship? Thats hilarious. 60 years of invading countries, both covertly and overtly, the patriot act, George Bush, aquisition of global resources, and NOW you're embarrased. I think its sad that censorship is the straw that breaks the camels back.
I think its funny that so many of you feel that "hurtful" and "hateful" is the same thing. Just because someone says homosexuality is evil doesn't mean that it is hate speech. It becomes hate speech when the goal of the speech is to create violence.
That isnt how everyone interprets it. Many people feel that saying the 3 letter word for bundle of sticks should be outlawed. What kind of society do we live in when a person cant accidentally say the r word for people with special needs, in a candid interview and correct himself immediately without getting jumped on by the media? Never mind the fact that this person makes millions of dollars and donates time and money to the special Olympics.
Just because we let Westborough baptist church shout nonsense does not mean it is legitimate or that anyone that lets them shout thinks it is legitimate.
It actually does mean that. Not opposing bigotry means that bigotry will be a stronger force in society than it otherwise would. Complicity, y'know.
Allowing them to speak is not the same thing as not opposing them.
I think its funny that so many of you feel that "hurtful" and "hateful" is the same thing. Just because someone says homosexuality is evil doesn't mean that it is hate speech. It becomes hate speech when the goal of the speech is to create violence.
To be protected under the law you need to be a " protected individual or a protected group"
For something to be Hate speech it isn't necessary that the goal be to create violence or frankly even hatred. Crude jokes can be defined as hate speech under the law and generally are for protect groups when it comes to the work place and some schools.
Outside of the law the definition gets even broader and broader every day.
"Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of one or more characteristics such as color, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, religion, and sexual orientation."
Although to me it generally seems like "White straight males that are neckbeards dumb Republicans" are the only ones not protected by this rule.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
The Community College I attended in the 90's had a great Human Sexuality class, but in about 1997, that class was cancelled after many many complaints. Though the videos were educational, they depicted real sexual activity very explicitly. The professor always put them in an educational context, which they were designed for, but so many people complained. I think it was a poor choice for the administration to cave under complaints, especially since that class had been running since the 60's.
now with that latest rambling about how it's like the Nazis to have laws that protect people of colour and homosexuals,
So, I guess you've completely stopped trying to pretend like you are reading and/or comprehending other peoples arguments and just want to spew random arguments at people you disagree with now?
Seriously, it take epic pretzel levels of twisting to get form what he said to what you said he said.
A Islamic person says homosexuality is a sin, the homosexual says that is hateful and intolerant. In response the Islamic man says calling his religion hateful is hate speech.
I can think of a thousand more examples but off the top of my head, this is a example of why banning 'hate speech' is sort of...circular.
This is not tricky. Calling homosexuality a sin is clearly intolerant. Pointing that out is not intolerant. Problem solved. What's next? 1+3-7?
Actually if you suppress their views so they are not allow to express their view, that being homosexual is a sin, is a form of intolerance. You are being intolerant of their views and religion.
It is perfectly possible to view homosexuality as a sin but not hate gay people. Have we forgot that millions of Christians have premarital sex, divorce, steal, take the lords name in vain... The only reason it's being made into such a huge deal right now is because of marriage rights.
Sure there are always going to be extremists. My wife remembers getting *****ed out while working at a grocery store on a Sunday for not being in Church... The person was going through the checkout. Should that person have been fined or sent to jail? Extremists are no reason to punish and suppress everyone.
The correct approach is to rationally convince the person they're wrong.
As you have demonstrated whenever you opine about how it's actually men who are oppressed, how white people are under attack and now with that latest rambling about how it's like the Nazis to have laws that protect people of colour and homosexuals, some opinions are not arrived at through rational analysis and choice and can not be dispelled through rational debate. This place is a poor arena for that anyway because the logistics of having debates with moderators would be a nightmare.
Actually the fact that so many people disagree with you proves that the choice isnt so simple. Just because I think X and you think Y doesnt mean one has to be wrong. There are always varying degrees of correctness in anything worth discussing. If it was a simple matter of because 1 and 2 we should Y then it wouldnt be worth talking about.
For instance. At the heart of the gay marriage debate, the thinkers that disagree with gay marriage, literally believe what the bible says. They may think gays dont have a choice in what they are but see it as a test from God to resist. They would believe that by allowing gay marriage society is supporting those people in sending themselves to hell for eternal life. Given that belief system I can easy see why someone would be so against gay marriage. They think they are saving people. That doesnt make it right, but it is an opinion.
Personally I oppose censorship in almost all it's forms including hate speech laws (banning child porn being one example where I can see redeeming value in censorship).
I think you need censorship at each level, just a lot less at the University. (The example you gave is a good one).
Edit: the examples given in the videos are ridiculously wrong. I think it's ok to censor illegal things such as hate speech, but the problem gets into how broad you define hate speech. In many cases it's defined broader than any court would uphold on legal grounds.
Illegal really. Not in America. Censorship of "hate" speech is bad because it vague and used to silence minority opinion.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
I teach at the university level, and I had a student last semester who wrote on my evaluation form, "As a WHITE MALE, you need to give more attention to women and minorities in the classroom". None of my other students felt this way, but I take any criticism I receive seriously, and put thought into this response. Anyways, the reason I bring this up is because I feel very singled out, because being a white male is not something i can control. I was born as a white male, and I don't think it's anybody's right to say that my actions should be dependent on factors outside my control, and i shouldn't have to censor myself just because of my race or sex.
anyways my point is that if you want to live in a free society, you have to respect that EVERYONE has rights, and some of those will infringe on yours. people have the right to speak, you might get offended (per my example above). people have the right to vote, your candidate might not win. people have the right to bear arms, folks are going to get shot.
living in a free society demands that we all approach these things RATIONALLY, and realize that individuals have to be mature in order to live in such a society (especially when in close proximity). Unfortunately this isn't the status quo, and people are grossly misinformed regarding concepts of justice, equality, and entitlement. Or maybe they choose not to think of them (cognitive dissonance). Regardless people need to grow the heck up.
My student said something hurtful to me, but i'm not going to sue them or anything because i'm a grown man, who understands that "that's just like, your opinion, man".
(in case it wasn't obvious, i abhor censorship EXCEPT in the case where speech is demonstrably FALSE or UNGROUNDED, i.e. teaching creationism, or impersonating a soldier to get benefits, lying in court testimony, or false advertising).
I guess you prove the point . . . you hate it except when it is supporting what you believe in . . . like evolution.
there's a profound difference between allowing all voices to be heard, and giving all voices equal weight. censorship can be either - complete, or partial. suppressing the expression of an idea is still censorship. in the case you mentioned, teaching science requires substantial evidence (see: several centuries of epistemology).
also 'i hate it except when it benefits me' is human nature, it's why we have laws that are (hopefully) impartial to all that crap. we're all flawed, man.
I have to turn a suspicious eye on the source of this video right out of the gate, because I looked at his channel and he's got a bunch of "Obama's trying to take over the world" stuff posted there. That's an "agenda" red flag for me and at the very least, the claims in question need to be multiply independently sourced.
That being said, if it's true that a university actually censured a student for "openly reading a book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject," then that is not only appalling but actively inimical to the very concept of education -- so much so that whoever perpetrated it literally cannot logically carry the title of educator.
Welcome to postmodern liberal "philosophy." Expecting consistency out of people who believe it is really nothing more than an exercise in just how red you want the imprint from the ensuing constant facepalming to be.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Don't forget . . . just because a belief may or may not be backed by knowledge, doesn't mean it isn't true. God is the One who wants choice.
That doesn't mean it isn't true, but if there's no actual evidence for something, then there's no reason to believe it's true.
The 'debate' between creationism and evolution isn't about "no actual evidence," but is a debate concerning evidence.
Just because we let Westborough baptist church shout nonsense does not mean it is legitimate or that anyone that lets them shout thinks it is legitimate. I hate hate speech laws because all they do is perpetuate the idea that certain groups are either unable to take the heat from a vocal stupid minority or that they need special protection because of their membership in a certain group. If I want to walk through a street and say that ******s are worthless lazy people, why should I be stopped? Could those homophobes claim hate speech against people calling them homophobes? All they are doing is following Jesus. Can fat people claim hate speech against other people making fun of them? It might really hurt their feelings and make them cry or even commit suicide? Or is it only hate speech when it goes against a group that has been historically oppressed?
Such as, but not limited to, those of racists and homophobes.
You forgot the underlined part, and its the underlined part that is a concern. "Hate Speech" is merely any speech that the people in power decide should be banned. It's a largely meaningless label.
Fortunately, in the US it *doesn't* get nearly as much credence as its analogue "think of the children".
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Actually it means that we recognize their right to say and think whatever they want. If they want to believe that the US will collapse because of homosexuals... that is their prerogative. Just because they think that does not make it true and just because nobody violently stops them from saying it does not mean that everyone agrees with them. Arrest is violence. If you think people should suffer violence for saying things in a public setting that may hurt someone else's feelings, we have nothing to discuss. It does not matter how far off base they are, all thoughts and ideals have a right to be heard and must not be oppressed in public.
A Islamic person says homosexuality is a sin, the homosexual says that is hateful and intolerant. In response the Islamic man says calling his religion hateful is hate speech.
I can think of a thousand more examples but off the top of my head, this is a example of why banning 'hate speech' is sort of...circular.
First things first. The Holocost was fulled largely by the suppression of free speech of any dissenting opinion burning books, media that wasn't in line with the Nazi party ect. were suppressed and dealt with often violently. Nobody was allowed to say the Nazi party or Hitler was wrong, which is what made the hate speech propaganda effective. YOU WOULD BE VERY WELL SERVED IF YOU NEVER FORGET THIS.
"hate" speech =/= terrorism.
Terrorists often use "hate speech" but that doesn't make hate speech terrorism.
Hate Speech isn't limited too those things. But, here is a brake down of what happens with "hate speech" which is what makes the censorship of "hate" speech dangerous.
1. Person speaking - "potentially" a bigot. People who aren't bigots can attempt to show them what's wrong with their beliefs, truly hateful opinions get changed or the person that is a bigot is only able to speak to other bigots and because of this gets further entrenched in his potentially harmful views.
2. Person suppressing free "hate" speech- Is a bigot by every definition of the word.
3. Undecided Person hearing free(hate speech)- is able to hear both sides of an argument if and will choose the correct side. If "hate speech" is suppressed they only hear one side and will choose it right or wrong.
Any suppression of speech that doesn't directly cause "imminent danger" is a step towards some form of a dictatorship. Dictatorships are what allow hate speech to work be effective.
Opposing bigotry via the removal of free speech is bigotry.
Bigotry
Noun plural
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
All it does is change the type of bigotry. The correct approach is to rationally convince the person they're wrong.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Just because I may believe that all homosexuals will go to hell does not mean they are actively oppressed in society. It means that I dont like them. Similarly I can think that anyone that owns a dog has self esteem issues and needs to get real friends. Laws preventing me from voicing my opinion are exactly one of the things people came to America to get away from. Your slippery slope argument to genocide is more ridiculous than the slippery slope of having all free speech laws revoked and living in a North Korea style society where saying the wrong thing about the supreme leader could land you in prison.
Note: I actually have zero issue with homosexuals, blacks or mentally handicapped people but i think it is ridiculous that in casual conversation people expect other to not say ******, *** or ****** even as a direct quote. A radio station I listen to reads funny twitter posts as one of it's bits and has to replace the word ******, with ninja... does that really do anything to help black people not be oppressed?
@bocephus
You're just now embarrassed to be an American? Because of censorship? Thats hilarious. 60 years of invading countries, both covertly and overtly, the patriot act, George Bush, aquisition of global resources, and NOW you're embarrased. I think its sad that censorship is the straw that breaks the camels back.
That isnt how everyone interprets it. Many people feel that saying the 3 letter word for bundle of sticks should be outlawed. What kind of society do we live in when a person cant accidentally say the r word for people with special needs, in a candid interview and correct himself immediately without getting jumped on by the media? Never mind the fact that this person makes millions of dollars and donates time and money to the special Olympics.
Allowing them to speak is not the same thing as not opposing them.
Wrong. http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/
To be protected under the law you need to be a " protected individual or a protected group"
For something to be Hate speech it isn't necessary that the goal be to create violence or frankly even hatred. Crude jokes can be defined as hate speech under the law and generally are for protect groups when it comes to the work place and some schools.
Outside of the law the definition gets even broader and broader every day.
"Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of one or more characteristics such as color, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, religion, and sexual orientation."
Although to me it generally seems like "White straight males that are neckbeards dumb Republicans" are the only ones not protected by this rule.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
[Clan Flamingo]
So, I guess you've completely stopped trying to pretend like you are reading and/or comprehending other peoples arguments and just want to spew random arguments at people you disagree with now?
Seriously, it take epic pretzel levels of twisting to get form what he said to what you said he said.
Actually if you suppress their views so they are not allow to express their view, that being homosexual is a sin, is a form of intolerance. You are being intolerant of their views and religion.
It is perfectly possible to view homosexuality as a sin but not hate gay people. Have we forgot that millions of Christians have premarital sex, divorce, steal, take the lords name in vain... The only reason it's being made into such a huge deal right now is because of marriage rights.
Sure there are always going to be extremists. My wife remembers getting *****ed out while working at a grocery store on a Sunday for not being in Church... The person was going through the checkout. Should that person have been fined or sent to jail? Extremists are no reason to punish and suppress everyone.
Actually the fact that so many people disagree with you proves that the choice isnt so simple. Just because I think X and you think Y doesnt mean one has to be wrong. There are always varying degrees of correctness in anything worth discussing. If it was a simple matter of because 1 and 2 we should Y then it wouldnt be worth talking about.
For instance. At the heart of the gay marriage debate, the thinkers that disagree with gay marriage, literally believe what the bible says. They may think gays dont have a choice in what they are but see it as a test from God to resist. They would believe that by allowing gay marriage society is supporting those people in sending themselves to hell for eternal life. Given that belief system I can easy see why someone would be so against gay marriage. They think they are saving people. That doesnt make it right, but it is an opinion.