What is 'Hate Speech'?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

CM156:

Saelune:
Considering that Nazis were initially stopped by literal war, I am inclined to disagree.

Except they *weren't* stopped long term. The fact that we're debating this is somewhat proof of that. The war stopped Nazi Germany, but that no more spelled an end to fascism than the fall of Revolutionary Catalonia spelled an end to Anarchism or the fall of the USSR spelled an end to communism. You can't kill an idea, even a bad idea, through use of force.

Well, Saelune said "initially". The Nazis were not in control of Germany or France after the war. The fascists were left alone to run Spain and Formosa, and have gained ground again recently, but it was a great success for large regions for decades.

Thaluikhain:

CM156:

Saelune:
Considering that Nazis were initially stopped by literal war, I am inclined to disagree.

Except they *weren't* stopped long term. The fact that we're debating this is somewhat proof of that. The war stopped Nazi Germany, but that no more spelled an end to fascism than the fall of Revolutionary Catalonia spelled an end to Anarchism or the fall of the USSR spelled an end to communism. You can't kill an idea, even a bad idea, through use of force.

Well, Saelune said "initially". The Nazis were not in control of Germany or France after the war. The fascists were left alone to run Spain and Formosa, and have gained ground again recently, but it was a great success for large regions for decades.

And now political radicals are back on the scene. It's almost like socio-political situations cause people to radicalize.

WolvDragon:
I honestly don't think hate speech in the U.S. should be made illegal. Because if you do, you're just gonna open up a can of worms over what could be seen as hate speech. You call Donald Trump a moron? You could be arrested because that could be seen as hate speech.

No let the assholes be assholes, show the world how stupid their ideas are. If you try to restrict their speech, you'll just be turning them into martyrs. I know some people on the left don't want that, but let your oponent talk, then respond back in kind (by discussing your own ideas, not really being an asshole back to them) and show them what idiots they are for believing in in such dumb ideas. You try to silence them, you're gonna give your opponents on a lot of ammo. Honestly we wouldn't have the Sargons and the Jordan Peterson's of the world if the left didn't try to censor people.

That's a rather naive view. I mean should it be illegal for someone to have a platform of advocating violence against a group of people? Like should there be laws against a "kill all the homosexuals" group? What about a group that has the same goals but pretends its not advocating violence, or say someone hiring a hit man but never saying "kill" just saying that so and so should disappear. Hes not actively inciting violence.

trunkage:

Saelune:
Considering that Nazis were initially stopped by literal war, I am inclined to disagree.

Yeah, unfortunately, sometimes to change people mind, you need actual violence. Then you get into what is the right cause to go to war for. Like, not all the Germans who died were Nazi. Did they deserve to die because their leaders were fascists?

Did those Germans the Nazis round up and kill deserve to die cause their leaders were fascists? No, no they did not. (See what I did there?) ((For those who do not, the first people hurt by the Nazi Germans were the Jewish Germans))

Anyone who would sell out their neighbors to be exterminated is guilty in the crime.

CM156:

Saelune:
Considering that Nazis were initially stopped by literal war, I am inclined to disagree.

Except they *weren't* stopped long term. The fact that we're debating this is somewhat proof of that. The war stopped Nazi Germany, but that no more spelled an end to fascism than the fall of Revolutionary Catalonia spelled an end to Anarchism or the fall of the USSR spelled an end to communism. You can't kill an idea, even a bad idea, through use of force.

I would point out that they were not stopped long term because we -stopped- the violence. Many Nazis were given jobs in the US government, and down the line the ACLU defended the KKK to let them parade. These acts of not violence is why Nazism and the KKK are still a problem today.

WolvDragon:
I think we can agree on that inciting violence against others should be illegal and it's not a free speech thing.

Should it, and is it?

I mean, if we're going to make "inciting violence" illegal, we already run into all the same problems as other forms of hate speech legislation.

Firstly, what counts as incitement? Let's say I'm a radical Islamist. If I say "behead those who insult Islam" that's pretty unambiguous, right? But what if I simply say "death to those who insult Islam." It's obvious what I mean, and someone listening with access to bomb-making equipment is going to know what I mean, but I haven't specifically mentioned a violent act, so did I incite violence? What if I'm inciting violence, but in a way that wouldn't actually be possible for me to commit. What if I'm saying "gas the Jews". Now, noone listening is going to be able to build a gas chamber in my back yard, so this isn't really a direct incitement to gas the Jews right now, what I'm advocating is a general principle that the Jews should be killed at some point. Does that count as incitement, or does it only become incitement when I have the power to make it happen?

Finally, what if I'm inciting violence "ironically". What if I'm joking? What if I claim to be joking but it's very clear that I'm not.

Secondly, what counts as violence? I mean, obvious example, the police and armed forces use violence as part of their job. Does expressing support for them indicate incitement for violence? What about if I tell someone they're within their rights to use a gun to defend their home from intruders? Technically, I've told someone that violence is legally and morally legitimate, have I incited violence? Again, obviously not.

See, hate speech doesn't criminalise incitement to violence, what it criminalises is incitement to hate-based violence. It criminalises suggesting that someone is deserving of violence or that violence against them is morally justified on the basis of a protected category.

WolvDragon:
But limiting a person's right to say whatever they want, as long it's not inciting violence against a group of people or attacking someone, is a bad idea. My original point still stands.

Okay, so what you've described is what hatespeech actually is. Hatespeech by definition excludes statements which are not "attacks" or expressions of hate (including murderous hate) against a group of people.

CM156:
Except they *weren't* stopped long term.

There are around 14 million Jews and 360 million Slavic people left in the world. There are ethnic minority populations in most countries in Europe, and all European countries are at least nominally democratic. I don't know about you, but I would call that progress.

You can kill an idea with force, and it's been done countless times. The fact that you just treated fascism and Nazism as interchangable illustrates the extent to which both are effectively dead. The societies that gave them life and made them meaningful are dead. The fact that our society gives life and meaning to bastardized ideological fusions of local reactionary politics and neo-Nazi symbolism which we, as a convenient shorthand, describe as "fascism" is incidental.

All that's left of fascism, and for the most part all that's left of Nazism, is the symbolism. The swastika, the salute, the general theatrics of power and paramilitarism. The anti-semitism of modern neo-Nazis isn't a direct inheritance from the Nazis, it's an expression of the anti-semitism inherent within virtually every European (and settler colonial) society, the same anti-semitism which lead to the Nazis. The other racism is even more transparently our racism, not Nazi racism. The US army which fought the Nazis in Europe was racially segregated. Black soldiers were only allowed to serve on the front lines under white officers, and only as a desperate measure.

I think what's actually illustrated here is that you can't kill an idea by sitting around and waiting for it to go away while wringing your hands about whether you're being fair to people who your fellow citizens have to live in fear of. Amazingly, doing nothing hasn't worked.

CM156:
Used questionably? Bit of an understatement there.

I guess that's subjective, but not really..

But then, you know, some of us have to be afraid of actual violence, not some imaginary "violence" which we equate with not being allowed to use racial slurs.

CM156:
Kinkshaming and hate speech are my kinks.

Then keep them in private and between consenting adults, like the rest of us.

Saelune:

trunkage:

Saelune:
Considering that Nazis were initially stopped by literal war, I am inclined to disagree.

Yeah, unfortunately, sometimes to change people mind, you need actual violence. Then you get into what is the right cause to go to war for. Like, not all the Germans who died were Nazi. Did they deserve to die because their leaders were fascists?

Did those Germans the Nazis round up and kill deserve to die cause their leaders were fascists? No, no they did not. (See what I did there?) ((For those who do not, the first people hurt by the Nazi Germans were the Jewish Germans))

Anyone who would sell out their neighbors to be exterminated is guilty in the crime.

So those politicians that force mass-immigration onto western countries, causing no-goVulnerable Areas where an incompatible culture rule pop up everywhere, building structures with loudspeakers proclaiming their superiority and right to rule, enforces real sexist views causing rapes, groping and gender segregation, increases the public violence with robberies, assault, gun shootings, bomb, grenade and rocket explosions, car and building burning, terrorist attacks, and encourages all this through lesser or no convictions with cuts in the police force and transferring funds from schools and healthcare and pensions to subsidizing benefits to New Citizens that outbreed natives and will eventually replace them and enforcing a general gag-order with Political Correctness and Hate Speech is guilty as well?
Oh, also those voting for the parties that implement those things are guilty too then?

evilthecat:

Okay, so what you've described is what hatespeech actually is. Hatespeech by definition excludes statements which are not "attacks" or expressions of hate (including murderous hate) against a group of people.

Then how do you explain Mark Meechan and Chelsea Russell and Brigitte Bardot?
And the banning of Lauren Southern, Brittany Pettibone and Martin Sellner from the UK?

Vendor-Lazarus:

Saelune:

trunkage:
Yeah, unfortunately, sometimes to change people mind, you need actual violence. Then you get into what is the right cause to go to war for. Like, not all the Germans who died were Nazi. Did they deserve to die because their leaders were fascists?

Did those Germans the Nazis round up and kill deserve to die cause their leaders were fascists? No, no they did not. (See what I did there?) ((For those who do not, the first people hurt by the Nazi Germans were the Jewish Germans))

Anyone who would sell out their neighbors to be exterminated is guilty in the crime.

So those politicians that force mass-immigration onto western countries, causing no-goVulnerable Areas where an incompatible culture rule pop up everywhere, building structures with loudspeakers proclaiming their superiority and right to rule, enforces real sexist views causing rapes, groping and gender segregation, increases the public violence with robberies, assault, gun shootings, bomb, grenade and rocket explosions, car and building burning, terrorist attacks, and encourages all this through lesser or no convictions with cuts in the police force and transferring funds from schools and healthcare and pensions to subsidizing benefits to New Citizens that outbreed natives and will eventually replace them and enforcing a general gag-order with Political Correctness and Hate Speech is guilty as well?
Oh, also those voting for the parties that implement those things are guilty too then?

evilthecat:

Okay, so what you've described is what hatespeech actually is. Hatespeech by definition excludes statements which are not "attacks" or expressions of hate (including murderous hate) against a group of people.

Then how do you explain Mark Meechan and Chelsea Russell and Brigitte Bardot?
And the banning of Lauren Southern, Brittany Pettibone and Martin Sellner from the UK?

You are going to be a bit clearer in what you are trying to compare to German citizens ratting out Jews to the Nazis to be exterminated to. Cause I mean, that is what you are doing, presumably in some sort of gatcha, and I just want to make it clear that whatever you are saying, you are equating it to the holocaust.

Vendor-Lazarus:
So those politicians that force mass-immigration onto western countries, causing no-goVulnerable Areas where an incompatible culture rule pop up everywhere, building structures with loudspeakers proclaiming their superiority and right to rule, enforces real sexist views causing rapes, groping and gender segregation, increases the public violence with robberies, assault, gun shootings, bomb, grenade and rocket explosions, car and building burning, terrorist attacks, and encourages all this through lesser or no convictions with cuts in the police force and transferring funds from schools and healthcare and pensions to subsidizing benefits to New Citizens that outbreed natives and will eventually replace them and enforcing a general gag-order with Political Correctness and Hate Speech is guilty as well?
Oh, also those voting for the parties that implement those things are guilty too then?

Perhaps they would be, if literally anything you just said was not made up.

It must be wonderful to live in a world where you literally have to dream up imaginary problems for yourself. But then, you can't even do that right, because even you can't pretend that this imaginary persecution affects you personally. You have to literally invest your entire identity into your race to find anything to be frightened about, like somehow it's going to be some great loss if in a few generations one of your descendents can't find a pure white spouse to bear their eugenically perfect children.

I don't like to judge, but that seems a bit pathetic to me. But then, I do live in a "no go zone" so maybe I'm just traumatised by living under the Sharia laws every day and not being allowed to eat bacon or drink alcohol, which is totally true. That really happens. The four wives are a bit of a plus, but it doesn't really compensate for the bacon.

Vendor-Lazarus:
Then how do you explain Mark Meechan and Chelsea Russell and Brigitte Bardot?

Wow, I wonder what those people might have said which could have been construed as an attack on particular groups of people, or as incitement to violence. I guess we will never know.

Just because a handful of cases can be regarded as a contextual overreach of the law does not fundamentally change the character of the law. "Gas the Jews" is a literal incitement to murder Jewish people. The n-word is a word that has been used for decades to verbally attack black people.

In the UK, we do have a problem with publication law, but it has to do with the fact that legal framework has not updated to cover the social media age, giving judges extensive power to apply laws intended to govern print publication to social media posts. Guidelines issued to members of the legal profession specifically point out that this is not the intent of the law, but until the gap is filled (which would require the government to do something about it) there will always be a problem and it goes far beyond the application of hatespeech laws.

Vendor-Lazarus:
And the banning of Lauren Southern, Brittany Pettibone and Martin Sellner from the UK?

..has nothing to do with hatespeech laws.

I mean, the power to exclude people from entering the UK falls to the home secretary and has nothing to do with the courts or the legal system. Incidentally, though, I wonder what kind of liberal pinko pro-immigrant commiescum was home secretary when those people were excluded..

generals3:

I can't make a case about individual vs individual situations as I won't be able to witness and judge the situation as an outsider. My point was obviously about more public instances.

The situation I referred to was a public instance (well, two public instances, though only one was widely witnessed).

If you don't experience it yourself, you're unlikely to be widely aware that it goes on, or how commonly it does. That doesn't mean it's not a widespread phenomenon. Hate crime disproportionately affects minority demographics; of course, those communities are going to be more acutely aware of it.

generals3:

Well that's not the example I had in mind. And I have never seen that be associated with the "pronouns" issue. These tirades are usually seen when the radical left demonizes whites, capitalists, men, anyone more to the right than them or the far right vs the islam, neo-commies, jews,...

I would also like to ask you, If someone blames jews for many ills of the world is that hate speech? And now if someone does that because towards bankers? Or rich people? Or white people? Or Americans?

You'll notice that I specified innate characteristics. Somebody's ethnic background is an innate characteristic; somebody's profession is not.

generals3:

That's another reason I'm totally against policing hate speech. The ones advocating for it are themselves guilty of that crime but extremely oblivious to it.

What? The above sentence doesn't hint towards that at all. Where am I guilty of hate speech?

generals3:

Not really, it is still very narrow. The distinctions for murder & alike are based on intent. And intent is still a very narrow concept. "Hate" is not, it is a description of certain emotions and as we all know emotions are fluid.
Intellectual theft is also defined by precise rules, joint ownership too (doesn't mean conflicts among owners can't arise), and squatting too (the conflicts there usually arise due to conflicts with other laws or owners who are angry about the laws which protect the squatters). There are always objective elements which can be used to judge these cases, the issues often arise when there is an inability to sufficiently prove or disprove these elements are present.
But how do you prove your words were or weren't filled with a particular emotion? Mainly nowadays, when people get triggered by almost anything? How do you prove you aren't the one who is breaking the law but that the other has a very thin skin or is on LSD?
In some cases it's easy due to how black & white they are, most however, aren't. And when policing speech, a fundamental right of any democracy worth being called that, you better ensure the grey areas are as small as possible. Otherwise you get a situation like Turkey where vague terrorism laws are used to lock up opposition and journalists.

Frankly, I just don't think you truly appreciate how complex trial law and prosecution get. Intent is so far from a "very narrow concept" that it's taken thousands of hours of formal debate, precedent, and professional analysis to get a hold on it, and still remains a constant bone of contention on court.

The law does rely on judgement calls (which almost always rest on precedent and the "spirit" of the law in question, as interpreted by the judiciary). This isn't really a point of valid contention; it's a fact.

Saelune:

Vendor-Lazarus:

Saelune:
Did those Germans the Nazis round up and kill deserve to die cause their leaders were fascists? No, no they did not. (See what I did there?) ((For those who do not, the first people hurt by the Nazi Germans were the Jewish Germans))

Anyone who would sell out their neighbors to be exterminated is guilty in the crime.

So those politicians that force mass-immigration onto western countries, causing no-goVulnerable Areas where an incompatible culture rule pop up everywhere, building structures with loudspeakers proclaiming their superiority and right to rule, enforces real sexist views causing rapes, groping and gender segregation, increases the public violence with robberies, assault, gun shootings, bomb, grenade and rocket explosions, car and building burning, terrorist attacks, and encourages all this through lesser or no convictions with cuts in the police force and transferring funds from schools and healthcare and pensions to subsidizing benefits to New Citizens that outbreed natives and will eventually replace them and enforcing a general gag-order with Political Correctness and Hate Speech is guilty as well?
Oh, also those voting for the parties that implement those things are guilty too then?

evilthecat:

Okay, so what you've described is what hatespeech actually is. Hatespeech by definition excludes statements which are not "attacks" or expressions of hate (including murderous hate) against a group of people.

Then how do you explain Mark Meechan and Chelsea Russell and Brigitte Bardot?
And the banning of Lauren Southern, Brittany Pettibone and Martin Sellner from the UK?

You are going to be a bit clearer in what you are trying to compare to German citizens ratting out Jews to the Nazis to be exterminated to. Cause I mean, that is what you are doing, presumably in some sort of gatcha, and I just want to make it clear that whatever you are saying, you are equating it to the holocaust.

Not equating. Those are your words and inferring. Comparing your statement of "Anyone who would sell out their neighbors to be exterminated is guilty in the crime."
Maybe if you were a bit clearer in what crime they committed?
Can I take it as you meaning traitors?
Then not all traitors are Nazis, nor is comparing situations equating it to the Holocaust.

Can we both agree that selling out your people to be lead to inevitable marginalization and eventual extermination is bad?
I also believe I have to detail that by your people I do not mean race genetics, which some are quick to jump to, but Citizens both native and integrated who shares your country-men's principles.

evilthecat:

Vendor-Lazarus:
So those politicians that force mass-immigration onto western countries, causing no-goVulnerable Areas where an incompatible culture rule pop up everywhere, building structures with loudspeakers proclaiming their superiority and right to rule, enforces real sexist views causing rapes, groping and gender segregation, increases the public violence with robberies, assault, gun shootings, bomb, grenade and rocket explosions, car and building burning, terrorist attacks, and encourages all this through lesser or no convictions with cuts in the police force and transferring funds from schools and healthcare and pensions to subsidizing benefits to New Citizens that outbreed natives and will eventually replace them and enforcing a general gag-order with Political Correctness and Hate Speech is guilty as well?
Oh, also those voting for the parties that implement those things are guilty too then?

Perhaps they would be, if literally anything you just said was not made up.

It must be wonderful to live in a world where you literally have to dream up imaginary problems for yourself. But then, you can't even do that right, because even you can't pretend that this imaginary persecution affects you personally. You have to literally invest your entire identity into your race to find anything to be frightened about, like somehow it's going to be some great loss if in a few generations one of your descendents can't find a pure white spouse to bear their eugenically perfect children.

I don't like to judge, but that seems a bit pathetic to me. But then, I do live in a "no go zone" so maybe I'm just traumatised by living under the Sharia laws every day and not being allowed to eat bacon or drink alcohol, which is totally true. That really happens. The four wives are a bit of a plus, but it doesn't really compensate for the bacon.

Vendor-Lazarus:
Then how do you explain Mark Meechan and Chelsea Russell and Brigitte Bardot?

Wow, I wonder what those people might have said which could have been construed as an attack on particular groups of people, or as incitement to violence. I guess we will never know.

Just because a handful of cases can be regarded as a contextual overreach of the law does not fundamentally change the character of the law. "Gas the Jews" is a literal incitement to murder Jewish people. The n-word is a word that has been used for decades to verbally attack black people.

In the UK, we do have a problem with publication law, but it has to do with the fact that legal framework has not updated to cover the social media age, giving judges extensive power to apply laws intended to govern print publication to social media posts. Guidelines issued to members of the legal profession specifically point out that this is not the intent of the law, but until the gap is filled (which would require the government to do something about it) there will always be a problem and it goes far beyond the application of hatespeech laws.

Vendor-Lazarus:
And the banning of Lauren Southern, Brittany Pettibone and Martin Sellner from the UK?

..has nothing to do with hatespeech laws.

I mean, the power to exclude people from entering the UK falls to the home secretary and has nothing to do with the courts or the legal system. Incidentally, though, I wonder what kind of liberal pinko pro-immigrant commiescum was home secretary when those people were excluded..

What I said is not made up. It's happening. Right now. In my country.
I too live in close proximity to several dozens of no-go areas. I see what happens. I hear it from the people themselves. And I read and watch such things going on all over Sweden. "No one is so blind as those who does not want to see."
If we are talking about made up stuff. Let's talk more than two genders, patriarchy, microagressions, toxic masculinity, etc.

Also, what is the deal with assuming I care about race genetics. I care about my culture, the western principles, and freedom. All which is eroding thanks to traitors and invaders.

You were very quick to attack me personally and exaggerate your text with sarcastic statements.
Perhaps I did hit a nerve. That Cognitive Dissonance making itself felt perhaps?

Neither of those people intended any such statement, and you know it.
Meechan made a joke about de-cutyfying his girlfriends dog with the least cute thing in the world. Nazis.
Russel posted song lyrics that are widely available (for sale even).
Bardot criticized immigration policies.

Southern, Pettibone and Sellner were prevented to enter UK due to calling allah a gay god.
They were also set to meet up with Tommy Robinson.

Vendor-Lazarus:
What I said is not made up. It's happening. Right now. In my country.
I too live in close proximity to several dozens of no-go areas. I see what happens. I hear it from the people themselves. And I read and watch such things going on all over Sweden. "No one is so blind as those who does not want to see."

You will, of course, be able to provide multiple credible sources to back this up. You won't need tabloid pieces, or angry rants by distant politicians, you'll be able to post actual statistics about this.

Vendor-Lazarus:
What I said is not made up. It's happening. Right now. In my country.

Nah mate, it's made up.

* Not arbitrarily restricting freedom of movement for no good reason save to pander to racists is not "forcing mass migration", even if we accept the argument that a demographically insignificant trickle of economic migrants (most of whom are short term) and a similarly insignificant number of asylum claims in response to a giant humanitarian crisis counts as "mass migration". In fact, let's face up to the filthy little lie you're perpetuating here and admit that any ammount of migration is "mass migration".

* I don't want to get too deeply into the economics of ghettoisation and its connection with gang violence, but suffice to say.. you know this happens anyway right? There were "no go zones" in my practically all white hometown back in the 90s. There still are predominantly white "no go zones" all over the poorer parts of the UK, to the insignificant extent such zones are actually "no go", which of course they aren't. The overwhelming driver of conflict in these areas isn't "culture", it's money. Specifically, the money which can be made dealing drugs, selling sex or other illegal activities. The violence and killing comes from struggles over territory between rival gangs. It is not random, and often the typical person is relatively safe from it because it is targeted at gang rivals.

When ethnic minorities form a persecuted or economically deprived class, they become natural targets and also natural recruitment pool for established gangs. The most obvious example is in the US, where the problems of predominantly black innercity gang violence are not the result of the introduction of an alien culture, black people have lived in the US almost as long as white people, but the result of persistent economic deprivation. The simple fact is though that criminals gangs will always prey on poverty and go after the members of society who are most vulnerable to exploitation. If you've created a society where immigrants are socially vulnerable, then it is no surprise that gang crime will target them and ultimately become embedded within their communities.

* Mosques sometimes (if they can obtain planning permission) broadcast the call to prayer, called the adhan in Arabic. The call to prayer is essentially a set of short phrases indicating the most important points of Islamic doctrine, which are repeated several times. These include "God is the Greatest", "There is no deity but God" and "I acknowledge that Muhammad is the Messenger of God." There is absolutely nothing about supremacy or the right to rule. Like, most of these you can kind of see where you got to your silly ideas, even if a reasonable person wouldn't have done so. This.. I feel like it's a waste of my time to even have to explain to you why this is wrong.

* Politicians do not encourage violent crimes by deliberately promoting lighter sentences for ethnic minorities. Like, there is literally no reason to do that. There have been accusations that individual police have failed to investigate or properly follow up on information for fear of appearing to target particular communities, but even these have generally been shown to be incredibly shaky and betray a weak to non-existent understanding of police procedure or the justice system or, in one famous instance in the UK, actually illustrate a completely different form of misconduct or prejudice by police which is then completely ignored in the public response. Regardless, even if one believes these accusations, the idea that politicians encourage this is absurd.

* The idea that the cost of providing benefits to foreign migrants has necessitated cuts to public services is, well, it's really quite silly. I won't deny that in many countries public services have been cut. I witnessed this myself working in care, and it makes me angry to this day. The reason those public services were cut was because of austerity programs following the 2008 financial crisis. What's most offensive about the idea that this was all due to excessive spending on benefits is that these same austerity programs particularly targetted the benefit system, to the point that people with terminal conditions were having their benefits cut because they'd been declared fit to work. And this is discounting that the vast majority of welfare spending goes on caring for the elderly. Most western countries, of course, have an ageing population and a rising dependency ratio, a situation which immigration actually helps to correct.

Spending on asylum seekers, who are overwhelmingly targeted by this kind of anti-immigrant rhetoric because they can't necessarily work or provide for themselves (they aren't actually allowed to, in many cases) is insignificant even by the standards of benefit spending. The idea that they are responsible for reduced public services funding is literally insane.

Vendor-Lazarus:
If we are talking about made up stuff. Let's talk more than two genders, patriarchy, microagressions, toxic masculinity, etc.

So, yeah...

* More than two genders (whatever the fuck you think you're talking about there) is "made up", because gender itself is made up. That is, like, the most basic and elementary point you can make about gender, it's almost a literal definition of the term itself. Noone who actually understands the concept thinks that gender is not, in some sense, made up. It's just that made up doesn't mean unimportant or insignificant.

This is going to be a recurring theme by the way, because you clearly don't understand what any of these terms mean.

* I don't know what you mean by claiming patriarchy is made up, because again, if you meant that literally then duh, of course, we all know that. So, I'm going to assume that what you mean here is that you think women who feel that they experience oppression within our society, or that our society functions broadly to the benefit of males, are simply wrong, they don't experience any oppression at all and they're just lying to get attention or something.. like.. all of them are lying to get attention. There's nothing wrong, everything is great. We had a black president and that means there's no racism ever.

So, I don't want to break out the statistics and I don't think you do either so let's see if we can avoid that. Do you actually think that we live in a society in which men and women are equal, in which being a woman is never a disadvantage to pursuing any kind of influence or authority within society, in which men and women are always universally accepted as equal in humanity and ability in every way that could ever be important to anyone. And, assuming you do think that, do you think not enough people could possibly disagree to render the concept heuristically useful.

* Microaggressions. I don't know what to tell you, man. Those exist. They very concretely exist. If you want to claim they aren't important, that's your right, but it doesn't really matter what you think, does it?

* Toxic masculinity. Again, I'm going to leave aside the very obvious interpretation, which is that you don't understand that masculinity itself is made up (and I say that as someone who has literally written hundreds of pages on the intellectual history of masculinity) and instead I'm going to assume that what you mean here is that toxic masculinity doesn't exist, that masculinity is always good and always non-toxic and people who talk about toxic masculinity just hate men. But in order for this to be true, we would have to believe that there aren't clearly destructive patterns of behaviour which are shared across many, many different men, which are far more common among men than women and which cause demonstrable social harm, and.. that's a really absurd thing to believe. It's an absurd thing to believe even if your primary interest in making life better for men.

Like, men kill themselves more than women. It's a statistical reality which you can't really deny. It happens for lots of different reasons, but some of the big ones are men refusing to seek help in cases of mental illness, men not being equipped with the kind of language and emotions to process emotions socially, men pushing themselves too hard in pursuit of societal goals of success, men being more likely to self-medicate psychological problems with drugs and alcohol. Like, these are very clear cut examples of how the culture about "being a man" has reduced men's literal ability to survive in this world. If you don't think that's toxic, then wow.. your process of denial must be amazing.

Vendor-Lazarus:
Also, what is the deal with assuming I care about race genetics. I care about my culture, the western principles, and freedom. All which is eroding thanks to traitors and invaders.

I don't believe you.

People who care about Western Principles understand the humanist basis of those principles. You are not a humanist, you're a particularist. Your "culture" is the mindless veneration of tradition. Your "western principles" are just a thinly veiled excuse for western (read white) exceptionalism and, ultimately, for western (again, read white) supremacy. Your freedom is the the freedom to be like you but only to be like you. Because that's what freedom means, it's the freedom to conform, it's the freedom to assimilate, it's the freedom to fit in and be like everyone else.

And yet the irony is that for all your supremacism, for all your belief that your "culture" and "principles" are superior, you don't think they can withstand a demographically insignificant influx of population. Despite your protestations that these things are good, you can't seem to imagine that anyone else could ever see the value of them unless they were exactly like you, hence that's the only way people are allowed to be before they're allowed to exist in your "free" society.

Because in the end, "freedom" is just a word, a symbol. It's not the negative absence of power, it's the positive presence of "culture", by which of course you mean tradition and, yes, race. Because ultimately, noone who isn't a racist worries about being "replaced".

Seriously, you're an embarassment to the West. You're literally everything we should have left behind already.

Vendor-Lazarus:
Neither of those people intended any such statement, and you know it.

I don't actually, and neither do you.

I don't think they intended any such statement, but that's different, and it leaves us with the difficult question of why they did it, if that wasn't the intent. I mean, do they genuinely not know what these words mean?

Vendor-Lazarus:
Meechan made a joke about de-cutyfying his girlfriends dog with the least cute thing in the world. Nazis.

Of course, because humour has never been used to disguise or cloak genuine hatred in a paper thin facade of irony. Jokes are by definition devoid of political meaning, which is why noone ever complains about #killallmen, because it's a joke and therefore you literally aren't allowed to criticise it.

I was going to do a joke here where I said a bunch of horrible things and then declared that it was a parody and I was only pretending to be the kind of person who would say those things so you couldn't hold me responsible for what I said, but then.. you know.. that would be unfair on the moderators and could get me banned or something, so I'm not going to do that because I'm not a literal fucking child and I understand that I can't just say whatever I want and get out of it by pretending it's a joke.

Vendor-Lazarus:
Russel posted song lyrics that are widely available (for sale even).

Again, because someone else's words can never be taken out of context and used in a hateful or abusive way which the original source of those words would not have intended. Also, it's okay to say the n-word whenever you like and in any context you like because a black person said it once, that makes it okay.

I have a particular problem with that case, but if you've got to the age of 19 and you haven't figured out that the n-word is a problem for black people.. hoo boy.. Liverpool is a hell of a place, huh?

Vendor-Lazarus:
Bardot criticized immigration policies.

That wasn't the problem, and you know it.

Vendor-Lazarus:
Southern, Pettibone and Sellner were prevented to enter UK due to calling allah a gay god.

Nope.

Again, they were prevented from entering the UK because the Home Secretary used exclusion powers to prevent them from entering. The home office, at least hypothetically, uses those powers in response to security concerns, because they're worried someone might breach the peace or commit other crimes if they were allowed in.

This is literally an issue of border enforcement in the face of security concerns, and I'm a bit surprised you're so in favour of lax border security.[1] We wouldn't want "incompatible cultures" getting in and causing crimes, would we?

[1] I'm lying, of course, I'm not surprised at all, but it's a joke so you can't criticise me

Thaluikhain:

Vendor-Lazarus:
What I said is not made up. It's happening. Right now. In my country.
I too live in close proximity to several dozens of no-go areas. I see what happens. I hear it from the people themselves. And I read and watch such things going on all over Sweden. "No one is so blind as those who does not want to see."

You will, of course, be able to provide multiple credible sources to back this up. You won't need tabloid pieces, or angry rants by distant politicians, you'll be able to post actual statistics about this.

That is a lot of caveats and addendum's. I'm sure more would be added if I were to link anything.
That is the sad reality of such practices as polarization (bad faith), "Hate Speech" and Tone Policing.

evilthecat:
-snip-

Quite the impressive word count! You must indeed spend a lot of time behind that keyboard. As a writer of course.

We will simply have to agree to disagree. We can still do that right?
(Before we are accused of derailment)

Vendor-Lazarus:
Quite the impressive word count! You must indeed spend a lot of time behind that keyboard. As a writer of course.

I'm not sure there is a more revealing attempt at a burn than "hey, you took the time to offer a complete response".

And once you've let slip the position that you consider those who disagree with you to be "traitors", you've lost the good faith necessary to expect agreeable disagreement. That kind of unbridled authoritarianism is not something I can personally forgive. If you can live with that (and I hope so, at least so that you can have a chance to grow out of it) then we don't have to talk any more.

Vendor-Lazarus:

Saelune:

Vendor-Lazarus:

So those politicians that force mass-immigration onto western countries, causing no-goVulnerable Areas where an incompatible culture rule pop up everywhere, building structures with loudspeakers proclaiming their superiority and right to rule, enforces real sexist views causing rapes, groping and gender segregation, increases the public violence with robberies, assault, gun shootings, bomb, grenade and rocket explosions, car and building burning, terrorist attacks, and encourages all this through lesser or no convictions with cuts in the police force and transferring funds from schools and healthcare and pensions to subsidizing benefits to New Citizens that outbreed natives and will eventually replace them and enforcing a general gag-order with Political Correctness and Hate Speech is guilty as well?
Oh, also those voting for the parties that implement those things are guilty too then?

Then how do you explain Mark Meechan and Chelsea Russell and Brigitte Bardot?
And the banning of Lauren Southern, Brittany Pettibone and Martin Sellner from the UK?

You are going to be a bit clearer in what you are trying to compare to German citizens ratting out Jews to the Nazis to be exterminated to. Cause I mean, that is what you are doing, presumably in some sort of gatcha, and I just want to make it clear that whatever you are saying, you are equating it to the holocaust.

Not equating. Those are your words and inferring. Comparing your statement of "Anyone who would sell out their neighbors to be exterminated is guilty in the crime."
Maybe if you were a bit clearer in what crime they committed?
Can I take it as you meaning traitors?
Then not all traitors are Nazis, nor is comparing situations equating it to the Holocaust.

Can we both agree that selling out your people to be lead to inevitable marginalization and eventual extermination is bad?
I also believe I have to detail that by your people I do not mean race genetics, which some are quick to jump to, but Citizens both native and integrated who shares your country-men's principles.

Exterminated means killed, you know that right? The crime of bigoted murder, the crime of genocide. Traitors yes, but traitors to the point of betraying your countryfolk to literally be killed by the government.

I mean, am I not even allowed to compare Nazis to Nazis now?

Yes, we can both agree about that, but I don't think we do.

As for comparing the US government to Nazi Germany, no, we are not at death camps yet, but we are at the rounding people up and separating families from eachother part. People do not like it when I compare Trump to Hitler, but he is actually pretty on course for it, and I become more proven every day it seems.

The site ate my post

Vendor-Lazarus:
That is a lot of caveats and addendum's. I'm sure more would be added if I were to link anything.
That is the sad reality of such practices as polarization (bad faith), "Hate Speech" and Tone Policing.

Asking for sources to be "credible" and "accurate" usually isn't seen as unreasonable, it's normally taken for granted. Admittedly, that is a problem when you're trying to argue a xenophobic fantasy with no connection to the real world.

generals3:

Rich people are not at fear? That must be why they do not avoid certain neighborhoods or at the very least avoid showing their "richness" and that's also why rich people never have alarm systems.

They do so because they can afford to. It's not like merely being rich means you are a greater target. I live in the heart of Sydney's CBD (well, just next to it) ... which grants me a level of exposure to other people far greater than anywhere else in the nation. Am I routinely targeted for being rich? No.

I have never been assaulted in Sydney simply for being rich. Never.

I have faced hostility and violence for being poor and trans, however. I can provenly show you that the society I live in bends over backwards for me solely because I have money. I have a string of contacts in social and political circles because I have money.

Because I have money, unless caught redhanded knowingly committing a crime, I'll never see a gaol cell. Being wealthy is pretty unambivently great. No downsides whatsoever. Would recommend it to anyone. I can guarantee you I feel far less fear than I did when I was poor. The funny (frightening) thing is, I'm real fucking cautious about who I tell I'm trans to, however.

Why do you think that is?

At best you can say rich people have the ability to throw money at their problems.

Which are problems everyone faces, although not everyone can leverage their risk like rich people can.

But that still leaves out "whites", "americans", etc.

And these people face recorded and greater rates of statistical levels of public hatred ... where?

Filipinos in Manila face more routine violence, unnatural death and destruction in person in the former American colony that Americans brutalized than current American residents.

I agree, if Filipinos were just routinely rounding up innocent American residents and shooting them solely for being Americans, that the the government should do more to prevent that from happening. But, you know ... we don't see it. As opposed to LGBTQ people being murdered solely for being LGBTQ.

That we see a metric fuckton of across the world.

Are you saying a society then shouldn't actually address it or pretend like such bias crime are the same as any other type of crime? They're not, because we have evidence of that. They have different social mechanics, and thus require different social engineering exercises to stop.

And you must have forgotten your history. Rich people and societies have often been the target of hatred and crimes.

And yet the death rate of the wealthy due to unnatural, violent causes is not apparent in comparison of those who live in poor neighbourhoods.

Which in no way disputes anything I have said.

Then why bring up that critique before?

]
Aggravating vs attenuating circumstance. Doesn't change the definition of murder...

No, but then again not all homicide is equitable in odiousness.

How do you determine something is an active attempt to undermine that?

Remember when I said you had to prove bias crime occurred? If youcan prve it, why do you personally think it doesn't deserve a higher weight of punishment?

Me being murdered because of a crime of passion is not thesame as me being murdered simply for existing. After all, if I get murdered by someone simply becauseI have money ... that's kind of the oldest reason in the book to murder someone.

Me being murdered simply for being LGBTQ has dimensions affecting other LGBTQ people. People who could easily see themselves being murdered in my place regardless of their agency. Regardless of their situation within any humanly capable means of foresight could see themselves being targeted the same.

This is why the punishments are (should) be harsher. This is particularly so when thesociety at large does routinely target people as such. Bias crime is provably worse by the nature of the crime's dimensions than coventional motivations, precisely because it matters not the actual agency of the victim and it galvanises fear in the targeted community.

You do understand "proving" a nebulously defined action occurred becomes extremely nebulous itself?

Actually there are quite clear cut definitions of bias crime in places like, say, Australia. What should be considered bias crime, etc. So ... what specifically do you have a problem with?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here