Hate Speech

Post Reply New Topic

I don't know what it's like in America but here in the UK you can have a serious conversation with second generation Mulslims and they'll say they are worried about the pressures of immigration, it's complex.

Certainly for the last ten years when Labour wer ein power anyone for any reason even vaguely questioning the whole range of issues like pressure on the infrastructure, housing, jobs , rapid culural and social change anything on reasonable grounds was denounced as racist. It was like Mcarthyism, and it seemed that the people who were benefiting from immigration were using this and very real race laws to shut up what many would regard as legitimate protest.

The problem was there was no organised voice of protest except for UKIP and the much more extreme BNP and later the EDL ( who claim not to be racist ).

The above mixture had the effect of turning reasonable argument towards more extreme and sometimes hateful views, but there is a massive difference between making a reasonable statement like " there is no available affordable housing because of the sudden influx of people living in our country, or my wages have dropped because of the mass availability of cheap labour, or our schools are full to bursting point ,and we can't find a NHS dentist without having to wait three weeks", and saying I hate these people because they are not white.

Stating a factually supported observation and experience is not hate, but it was often labelled as such
and certainly disregarded by those in authority if anyone attempted to argue with the main political doctrine. That was another kind of madness.

Stating non factual rubbish about another race or group of people and your negative opinion towards them based on rubbish and gossip and expansion of myths , is hate.

Vested interest groups can claim that anything related to them that they disagree with is 'hate speech' and needs to be outlawed. Absolutely anything. If they can claim that, say, certain statistics showing that rapists or murderers are more likely to come from X background and that there are a lot more rapes/murders committed by X group than by the rest of the population, that can inspire hate from the rest of the population.

Solution: stifle the truth. Only it's not a solution, because it gets out anyway.

Also, who defines hate? Most jokes can be offensive to at least one or two people, if they take offence. Some people will take offence at literally anything for their own sense of superiority and personal gain if they're encouraged to do so.



Anyone with any sense shouldn't let anyone else's bitterness get to them. Let them stew in it.



Then they don't need to express it. They'll find other, more subtle ways of doing so. Put them underground and they'll congregate together. Don't give them the feeling that their feelings are to be banned, shut down, proscribed because that will feed into their victim complexes. Laugh at them. Ignore them. Ridicule them. But don't ban them. Because if they're opinions are worth banning today, your opinions will be next, little lady.

If it were me, I'd have Anjem Choudhury and his lot on TV once a week for an hour. I would. Just so people can see what Shariah law under these loons would be like. Give them the oxygen of publicity. Let them become the panto villians. If you can see your bogeymen and laugh at them heartily, they're not so scary any more.



You can use your voice to fight back. If you shut them up, they don't have a voice. There is no freedom, no democracy. And if, by doing this, these parties grow - say, they end up with substantial presence in parliament, then what? What if your censorship is making matters worse? You'll end up with a 'reasonable' sounding party with an agenda that everyone knows about underneath but no-one can say anything.

Censorship never, ever works. Their message will get out until you close them down again. The sunlight will deal with them.

The BNP are a tiny political party here in Britain. They are roundly ridiculed by, well, nearly everyone who doesn't vote BNP. Compared to parties on the Continent (like the FPÖ) they are not worth worrying about. They are fracturing and they are broke. They are a ludicrous, pompous set of ne'er-do-wells. Want them to stay like that? A free market in political opinions.



And soon enough, that 'hater' will be you.

the same could be said of any law, which is why there are lawyers and courts. there will always be a grey area, and you can't really avoid differences of opinion. and NOT creating a law or enforcing a law just because it could potentially be abused is irresponsible.

and yes, some people will always take offense. not sure what your point is. not everything is automatically going to be taken to extremes. many governments already do enforce laws (and forums enforce rules) against hate speech with no problem, so i'm not suggesting some kind of brand new approach.


people have a right to be protected.

perhaps in your universe nobody gets hurt by words, so it doesn't matter to you if there are racist or sexist statements. but other people DO feel the pain, and hate speech can lead to hateful acts.

just today, a member made a sexist statement that hurt a female's feelings. she was targeted simply because of her gender, and she did not deserve that kind of treatment. the person who said it was publicly stewing, and he used words to try to hurt females. and it worked. that girl didn't do anything to him.


we're just saying the same things back and forth in slightly different words, so there isn't much point in pursuing that further.



actually... censorship works quite effectively. you must realise your government (and my government) effectively use it all the time, usually so subtly that you don't even notice it?

and what is this about a lack of freedom or something if people cannot express hate speech? you are hyperbolising.


and in that... you are wrong. police workers, judges, censors, moderators etc. are not haters just because of the job they do. and i am not a hater for supporting them for the protection of others.

Great stuff. I have many questions after reading this conversation....

One thing to note is that holding and/or expressing hate is very bad for the carriers health

I have known peps who say/do bad things, to have a weird accident, which appears as some sort of divine intervention/karma

Judge others, and be judged. Do spiritual forces act?

Surfman - what is the opposite of hatespeech and all this right -left wing BS?

I don't really like discussing it for long. It's like radium , those who handle it must take precautions.

It seems to have along half-life as well,

Poem in there huh- double meaning- "half life of hate"

I've got enough social problems without adding hate to them.

British takeaways run by Asians (I'm not on about proper curry joints here, but more the kebab/chicken/pizza places) serving very poor quality food? This one is borne out by experience.

it's not USEFUL though. i was asking for useful stereotypes as you said they could serve a purpose.

No, what you need to do is have as few laws as possible, and for them to be as easily defined as possible. That way, everyone knows what is illegal and what isn't. There's no obfuscation, no many, many get-out clauses for lawyers and the like. They defend their clients on the law and on the spirit of it. They can then decide to acquit or not.

Also, I really wouldn't go on about clamping down on free speech and 'victims' - the victims even of serious crimes here are utterly disserviced by our justice system, with serious criminals getting derisory sentencing, criminal immigrants being allowed to stay here, pregnant illegal Nigerians turning up here and demanding treatment on the NHS, and so on.

The country is a mess and so is the law.



Call it a taxpayer-funded special interest group, like, I don't know, the Muslim Council of Britain or the Disabled Charity for Fluffy Bunnies or the National Something for Whatever. What then? At what point do you tell rent-seekers and troublemakers to get lost?

As I said, absolutely anyone can claim offence. Lots of people love claming offence. If enough people claim offence, in your world anything can be banned as hate speech because they (claim to) find it hateful. Understand my point here?



First off, forums are private property, so they can write what they like. See Stormfront, et al. Let them spew their bile - then they can be monitored and checked up on. If there is a problem, it can be nipped in the bud. Usually, though, it's just people letting off steam.

If I had a really difficult time with really incompetent (and abusive) doctors and I've had a long, long, long history of bad experiences with doctors, should I be prosecuted and punished for writing flippantly on a message board that I hate all doctors and in my world I'd have them all hung up by their thumbs?

That's hate speech. A doctor reading that could feel that I really wanted to do that. If it was in context though, it would make sense. It's a stupid, throwaway remark.

Ask Paul Chambers about his little throwaway remark.



People do not have a right to not be offended. Ever. If they don't like something, they don't read it. They ignore it. They block it out and read something more positive. Most people get through life perfectly well doing this.



Don't punish the words; they are merely thoughts. Actions? Sure. Punish those. Otherwise, back off.

Otherwise we rush headlong into the tittle-tattle of she said this on Facebook and people acting like children. Law enforcement have more important things to deal with than some dick on a message board.



Can you show me the thread to that please?



Yes, and there should be less of it, excepting national security.

It is when you're in a strange town and you're looking for something to eat.

so you'd follow people of certain race around until they lead you to a restaurant? lol that'd be amusing but not too effective. really, by the time you see a proprieter's race, you're already inside the place. do you have any USEFUL stereotypes?

You can often tell by the exterior.

Wheresoever the attention lies, so too will vultures be gathered there

Lovespeech? Is that a new word?

Since you have scarcely learned the elements of self-control, in psychism, you must suffer bad consequences. You draw to yourself the nearest and strongest influences " often evil " and absorb them, and are psychically stifled or narcotised by them. The airs become peopled with resuscitated phantoms. They give you false tokens, misleading revelations, deceptive images. Your vivid creative fancy evokes illusive Gurus and chelas [disciples], and puts into their mouths words coined the instant before in the mint of your mind, unknown to yourself. The false appear as real, as the true, and you have no exact method of detection since you are yet prone to force your communications to agree with your preconceptions.

There is only true speech and false speech.

ruveyn

Google says it has been used before, but not widely, and usually as "love speech" not concatenated.

not a useful example of stereotyping. i think you understand we are discussing people, yes?

i have yet to see an example of when it could be useful to stereotype. keep trying though.

i completely disagree, and that is getting too political to be interesting to me.


no, because you are taking it to an illogical extreme that rarely, if ever, happens in reality.


you didn't address half of my point. i take it that you agree.


i believe people still have a right to be protected. i didn't say anything about a right to take offense.


where did i say that police should deal with people on message boards? LOL

people can have all the thoughts they want. i am talking about words. thoughts cannot lead to influencing others to persecute a group... but words can and do.


no. it is an example, and the people involved are not present. it is a general example only.


again i disagree.

Last edited by hyperlexian on 27 Jul 2011, 6:58 am, edited 1 time in total.