This is why this admin is viewed as supporting racists.

[WelshBloke]

Interesting concept. At which point in "protecting some people from other people" are you no longer "giving everyone a voice".

It's not a complicated or contentious point. Pretty much every culture has limits on what you can say.

 

[UglyCasanova]

You grabbed the google definition, why didn’t you post the second bullet

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

 

[Phenzyn]

It's not a complicated or contentious point. Pretty much every culture has limits on what you can say.

The UglyGuy probably understands the difference. Again, this is cognitive dissonance.

Either this person has ZERO empathy, like your typical serial killer (and our current President), or he is just using these mental gymnastics to make sense of his own racist thoughts, thoughts all Trump humpers invariably have.

And since I am absolutely sure that you can't be a modern Trump supporter without being racist, or incredibly naive. With support for Trump so high among the Republican base, which is it? Its a shame that racism is still this prevalent in today's society. I honestly thought we had made some huge strides and it was me who was being incredibly naive. I should know better then to believe in people.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Define "hate speech" and I might be able to answer.

No. We don’t need to define it. Its a yes or no question. Either you think there are things that can be said about minorities by someone in power that is unacceptable or you don’t. We don’t need to start spewing examples here.

 

[Phenzyn]

You grabbed the google definition, why didn’t you post the second bullet

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

LOL so you didn't read it either?

It's saying the same thing.

 

[jackstar7]

No. We don’t need to define it. Its a yes or no question. Either you think there are things that can be said about minorities by someone in power that is unacceptable or you don’t. We don’t need to start spewing examples here.

He's been binging episodes of "The Quibbler!"

 

[glenn1]

The guy in OP story is technically correct yet still missing the bigger picture. No, the President and "... our public figures can't be obliged to police every intolerant thought." They'd literally have no time to do anything else if they tried as we're talking countless examples daily. However they should feel the moral duty to speak out on especially egregious examples without needing any obligation and in general stand for the principle of tolerance. Sometimes boilerplate political agreements like this use lofty (and basically utopian) language like this, it doesn't need to be wordsmithed to something "more realistic" by a bureaucrat.

 

[UglyCasanova]

No. We don’t need to define it. Its a yes or no question. Either you think there are things that can be said about minorities by someone in power that is unacceptable or you don’t. We don’t need to start spewing examples here.

Why just minorities. Can people in power say “hateful” things against the majority? Minorities in what, just racial? Can they “hate” political minority’s? What is “hate”?

 

[cytg111]

Because the free expression of thoughts and ideas is one of the cornerstones of democracy. When you start expecting the politicians to condemn (a flavor of policing) something as nebulous as "hate speech" they can easily use that to their political advantage and at the same time undermine political opposition. The public is onboard because by golly who likes "hate". There's plenty of scenarios where this spins from utopia to distopia rather quickly and we won't even realize it's happening.

There is levels of this, you need a certain level of democracy and tolerance in the general public to have 100% free speech.. When/if a group of hate speakers reaches a certain mass it is a luxury you cant afford cause that group now poses a physical threat, existential threat to the whole.
Free speech isnt a binary construct.
I live in a country that tolerates ie. Hizb ut-Tahrir cause its only a few nutters... Hizb ut-Tahrir is banned in most others.. we tolerate them in the name of free speech.. Also we have about 85% turnout at elections so the peoples will is pretty close to applied policy.
I think you have more than a few nutters in the states and a much lesser turnout at elections.. Makes for an explosive cocktail.

 

[Sunburn74]

The UN resolution didn't say anything about policing hate speech. It said countries should work against racism. If you think it's not the responsibility of a government to ensure that racism and fascism don't take root under it's watch and lead to catastrophies like what happened in Germany, Cambodia, north korea, china, Uganda and currently in myanmar then I dont know what is seriously wrong with you

And yes you can and should police hate speech if such speech leads to violence or terrorism. It doesn't even have to be a criminal matter but something easily addressable in civil court similar to libel laws.

 

[Phenzyn]

What is “hate”?

This bout sums it up ladies and gents

Lets pick it up and move on. If you have to define hate to someone then they are obviously a serial killer. I need to get out of here before I make this guys list.

 

[jackstar7]

Why just minorities. Can people in power say “hateful” things against the majority? Minorities in what, just racial? Can they “hate” political minority’s? What is “hate”?

I hate this meme, but you deserve it.

"wHat iS hAtE?"

 

[UglyCasanova]

This bout sums it up ladies and gents

Lets pick it up and move on. If you have to define hate to someone then they are obviously a serial killer. I need to get out of here before I make this guys list.

If we are asking political leadership to start condemning speech and ideas I think it would be helpful to set the boundaries. Otherwise anything becomes "hate" and something that was well intended becomes a tool for political suppression.

 

[Jhhnn]

If we are asking political leadership to start condemning speech and ideas I think it would be helpful to set the boundaries. Otherwise anything becomes "hate" and something that was well intended becomes a tool for political suppression.

Yeh, it's so oppressive to have to be civil, isn't it? Why, nobody has the right to demand that from anybody else, because Freedumb! & shit, right?

People who use hateful language & symbols know it's hateful. That's why they use it.

 

[Vic]

Some people just can't see themselves as being free unless they're free to kill and/or enslave some other group of people.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Some people just can't see themselves as being free unless they're free to kill and/or enslave some other group of people.

Huh

 

[UglyCasanova]

Yeh, it's so oppressive to have to be civil, isn't it? Why, nobody has the right to demand that from anybody else, because Freedumb! & shit, right?

People who use hateful language & symbols know it's hateful. That's why they use it.

I didn’t say anything about civility. I said politicians will use something as nebulous as "hate" as a tool to undermine the political opposition.

 

[Sunburn74]

If we are asking political leadership to start condemning speech and ideas I think it would be helpful to set the boundaries. Otherwise anything becomes "hate" and something that was well intended becomes a tool for political suppression.

If libel and slander can have clear definitions why not hate?
Germany has had hate speech laws on the books for decades and have had minimal legal issues with them. Its not hard and its pretty much status quo for all laws: laws are written, field tested and if issues or gray areas arise let judges and legislators sort them out. I mean its a simple asinine argument to say well I'm having a hard time defining something so I'm going to completely ignore a problem. Can you imagine your CDC epidemiologist saying that? "Well we have a hard time defining this disease that is killing people, so lets just leave it alone and pretend it doesn't exist and cause harm".

 

[Vic]

I didn’t say anything about civility. I said politicians will use something as nebulous as "hate" as a tool to undermine the political opposition.

Trump condems speech all the time, usually as a tool to undermine his political opposition. Where's your concern for that?
Your argument is essentially that politicians shouldn't be allowed to take a moral position. Which is, of course, absurd. But I'm sure you already knew that.

 

[Jhhnn]

I didn’t say anything about civility. I said politicians will use something as nebulous as "hate" as a tool to undermine the political opposition.

Which means it's important to not be hateful if you don't want that to happen. Unless you're Trump or one of his most rabid followers. The you can just go on about how they're the real haters for calling you on it.

 

[Vic]

Huh

Racism and hate speech lead inexorably to violence and slavery. Eventually, given enough talk, people are going to take action on their words.
However, I do not believe that any laws should be passed to prohibit such speech. But to say, as you are saying, that any stance against certain speech by political leaders is the as 'policing' that speech is - once again - absurd.

 

[UglyCasanova]

If libel and slander can have clear definitions why not hate?
Germany has had hate speech laws on the books for decades and have had minimal legal issues with them. Its not hard and its pretty much status quo for all laws: laws are written, field tested and if issues or gray areas arise let judges and legislators sort them out. I mean its a simple asinine argument to say well I'm having a hard time defining something so I'm going to completely ignore a problem. Can you imagine your CDC epidemiologist saying that? "Well we have a hard time defining this disease that is killing people, so lets just leave it alone and pretend it doesn't exist and cause harm".

I’m not saying we can’t, I’m asking those saying there is such a thing to define it. So far all I’m getting is feedback on how stupid I am and it should be obvious which isn’t really much to go on.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Trump condems speech all the time, usually as a tool to undermine his political opposition. Where's your concern for that?
Your argument is essentially that politicians shouldn't be allowed to take a moral position. Which is, of course, absurd. But I'm sure you already knew that.

My arguement isn’t that at all, but you’ll no doubt take the liberty of saying it anyways. A politician can and should take moral positions. That’s not what was being argued in the OP or this thread.

 

[Jhhnn]

My arguement isn’t that at all, but you’ll no doubt take the liberty of saying it anyways. A politician can and should take moral positions. That’s not what was being argued in the OP or this thread.

Not condemning racism is obviously an immoral position. Trump does it all the time. That's why white racists love him.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Not condemning racism is obviously an immoral position. Trump does it all the time. That's why white racists love him.

Does the lack of condemnation mean condonation? Should we need officials to give opinions on every bad thing people say? To what end, that’s an unrealistic and absurd position. Did Obama condemn every bad thing said or done in society? Of course not, did that mean he condoned them? Id be Curious if he decried the racist remarks and attitudes towards whites? I don’t for a minute think he condoned it.