Exactly, kind of like all the incessant "Grumbling" that goes on here concerning the President.
What's the difference?
You constantly complain and criticize the opposing views of millions of Americans, while the people here on this site criticize one person for his personal behavior, and if you can’t understand the difference then I’ll “disagree” with you and say you are dumber than a box of rocks.
You all here constantly criticize the President and then turn right around and belittle anyone who defends him. That's OK. But let anyone criticize the Left and whamo!... Meltdown that includes personal attacks and whatever you see fit.
Snowflake. You can hand it out, but you can't take it. If President Trump is a racist, then referring to the lack of intellect displayed by a Congresswoman seems like nothing more than turnabout. Both are mere opinions, right?
Sore losers at best; why all the anger?
Actually I am with you 100% Vince. But I was trying to make a point. Trump is purposely looking away from his own kind. It's painful for me to admit as a white male myself. But white males are perpetrating 95% of this hatred and mayhem.
Maybe you should check the demographics of who's committing the vast majority of murders in the USA.
Maybe you should check the demographics of who's committing the vast majority of murders in the USA.
You shouldn’t fall for that fake news.
Check the weekly police reports from Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Detroit...................
I deny "Global warming" and speak out against it. Is that hate, ignorance or just disagreeing with statistics presented as facts?
No, that's stupidity.
Point: Holocaust Denial exists. I consider Holocaust Denial to be hate speech
Disagree. "Holocaust Denial" is absolute ignorance of undeniable fact. Pure and simple.
I deny "Global warming" and speak out against it. Is that hate, ignorance or just disagreeing with statistics presented as facts?
Not trying to derail the thread, but really? 150 years of industrial pollution is not going to have an environmental impact? Twenty plus years of breaking record high temperature records at over twice the rate of record lows is not global warming?
Are you in the "Chinese hoax" camp or the "climate scientists getting rich and famous" camp of science denial? Maybe you're with the "gays are the reason for hurricanes" crowd?
You know people didn't agree with Galileo when he said the earth goes around the sun, right? Should they have stuck to their guns?
For a Libertarian, there is a whole lot of Republican party nonsense being espoused.
But "make no mistake" it is super important to fight for people's right to be offensive (when it is convenient).
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".
--Evelyn Beatrice HallI stand by this
You realize that you did not really make any kind of response to the actual post, right? Why did you not "defend to the death" the situation I referenced? Here it is again:
Remeber when BIGV, the free speech superhero, swooped in to defend Ilhan Omar from the anti-semitism accusations made against her by the "PC Police"? All she did was say something offensive to some people. Remember when he jumped all over one of his fellow right-wingers on this forum for being an easily offended snowflake and calling Omar a racist because she said maybe people should fear white males?
Me either...
But "make no mistake" it is super important to fight for people's right to be offensive (when it is convenient).
Seems like his argument totally absolves her...
just disagreeing with statistics
Holy derangement!
Statistics, by definition, are facts.
That is always a choice. As long as there is no violence, let people say what they will....yawn
Sounds to me like you have never experienced hate speech directed at you. I have, for real. It hurts. A few times it was combined with severe violence - guess what remains, decades later? The words and intent. They made more impact than the broken bones - that pain is forgotten. I wouldn't wish that memory on anyone. Hilarious, huh?
This is not an evil crafty liberal stealth call for censorship, I am grateful for our Constitution, however the truth isy ou can mess someone up with verbal abuse as bad as physical.
Hate speech does exist: It is surreal that we find ourselves in a world in which I have to say that hate speech is real. I could understand a debate over what qualifies as hate speech, but to argue over the existence of hate speech - future shock, man.
To openly deny that hate speech exists, to proudly proclaim this on a public forum, is hate speech.
[Edited on 8/21/2019 by BrerRabbit]
Why did you not "defend to the death" the situation I referenced? .
Because I simply & absolutely disagree with her, but believe she has the right to say whatever she wants.
just disagreeing with statistics
Holy derangement!
Statistics, by definition, are facts.
Dead wrong.
Statistics are used to draw conclusions derived from data. They are NOT facts.
Can statistics be shaped to fit any argument you choose?
This is not an evil crafty liberal stealth call for censorship
That is exactly what it is.
I could understand a debate over what qualifies as hate speech, but to argue over the existence of hate speech - future shock, man.
Then for the 5th time, I will ask you to give us the Legal definition. Since you are so set on proclaiming its existence, tell us how you would present it from a Prosecutorial point in a Court of Law. How would such a case argument begin?....What Law would one have broken?
just disagreeing with statistics
Holy derangement!
Statistics, by definition, are facts.
Dead wrong.
Statistics are used to draw conclusions derived from data. They are NOT facts.
Can statistics be shaped to fit any argument you choose?
“Statistics are used to draw conclusions”. Maybe, but statistics themselves are facts. X number of people voted for candidate A. That is a fact. Average Temperatures have been rising for the past decade.. that is a fact. Using statistics to twist things for your own agenda is misrepresenting facts.
But the statistics themselves are facts.
“Statistics are used to draw conclusions”. Maybe, but statistics themselves are facts.
Sorry, but you are wrong, statistics are not facts, they are numbers and percentages alone do not constitute facts. You're a bright guy, you should know this.
Let me guess, willful ignorance does not exist unless we can provide a legal definition.
Let me guess, willful ignorance does not exist unless we can provide a legal definition.
Well, can you provide one for the term "Hate Speech"?...Seems pretty easy, either you can or you can not.
Believe me, you are the only one who gives a turd about your legal definitions. There is no legal definition of a million things that in fact exist. “Sexy miniskirt” has no legal definition, but I have seen one.
You are basically arguing that the sky is green at this point. Hank Aaron hit 755 home runs, it’s a widely known statistic. Tell me what facts you can draw from that other than he hit the home runs. You are literally saying that the definitions of words are wrong.
Believe me, you are the only one who gives a turd about your legal definitions. There is no legal definition of a million things that in fact exist. “Sexy miniskirt” has no legal definition, but I have seen one.
"Sexy miniskirt" is a physical thing and therefore, can be seen and visually identified. "Hate Speech" as a terminology is an accusatory phrase. It is used by those who find certain remarks to be offensive....The assumption is that when you accuse someone of something you are expecting some sort of action. People who label what they feel to be "inflammatory" are doing so for a reason...What is to be gained?...The sheer joy of yelling out ..."That's hate speech"!?...or the intent of censorship?
There is no legal definition of hate speech because hate speech is not a crime. Pretty simple.
That is a fact. Like statistics.
There is no legal definition of hate speech because hate speech is not a crime.
Excellent.
Then what exactly is to be gained by accusing people of a manufactured term that can't be defined?
Believe me, you are the only one who gives a turd about your legal definitions. There is no legal definition of a million things that in fact exist. “Sexy miniskirt” has no legal definition, but I have seen one.
"Sexy miniskirt" is a physical thing and therefore, can be seen and visually identified. "Hate Speech" as a terminology is an accusatory phrase. It is used by those who find certain remarks to be offensive....The assumption is that when you accuse someone of something you are expecting some sort of action. People who label what they feel to be "inflammatory" are doing so for a reason...What is to be gained?...The sheer joy of yelling out ..."That's hate speech"!?...or the intent of censorship?
“Miniskirt” is a physical thing that you can see. “Speech” is a physical thing that you can hear or read. “Sexy” and “hate” are adjectives describing the things. What one person thinks is sexy or hateful may not be the same as his neighbor. If a Jewish person thinks people in homemade nazi costumes chanting “Jews will not replace us” is hate speech, they are not wrong. You may have a difference of opinion, but that doesn’t really help the situation.
Then what exactly is to be gained by accusing people of a manufactured term that can't be defined?
It can and has been defined. A search of "hate speech definition worldwide" took less than a blink of an eye and provided a very long list countries with very specific definitions and prohibitions. But, I guess if it doesn't exist here it doesn't exist. Like the vast melting of billions of tons of glacier ice that took millennia to develop and months to disappear - this reality doesn't exist for some people, therefore it isn't real.
Dead wrong.
Statistics are used to draw conclusions derived from data. They are NOT facts.
Sounds a lot like “Alternative Facts”. Kellyanne would be proud of you, BIGV!
There is no legal definition of hate speech because hate speech is not a crime.
Excellent.
Then what exactly is to be gained by accusing people of a manufactured term that can't be defined?
I said there is no legal definition. There is no legal definition for "snow" but I am pretty sure it exists.
That's the difference between you and me. I can tolerate opposing views without spewing bile
Give me a legal definition of bile. Bile does not exist.
I simply stated my opinion, raised objection to your idea that hate speech does not exist, that I think denial of hate speech is sick and toxic, and would be a welcome view on Stormfront and 4chan - you think that is bile, fine.
I am tolerant of your views and you are intolerant of mine. I countered your position in good conscience without malice and with no interest in changing your views. I did not repeatedly or even once challenge you to prove your theory that hate speech does not exist. I did not in any way recommend you alter your views. I did not cast aspersions on your character. I diid not go ad hominem to insult and mock you and call you hilarious for your statements.
Accusing me of a hidden censorship agenda was nothing more than a cheap strategy to sabotage my words beyond face value and push your program. That was completely false, and damn harsh after my post describing my experiences. I can assure you that I support free expression of ideas. My direct ancestors wrote the Constitution, Jim!
You are the one who cannot accept that others think differently. Disagreement is not intolerance.
[Edited on 8/25/2019 by BrerRabbit]
That's the difference between you and me. I can tolerate opposing views without spewing bile
Give me a legal definition of bile. Bile does not exist.
I simply stated my opinion, raised objection to your idea that hate speech does not exist, that I think denial of hate speech is sick and toxic, and would be a welcome view on Stormfront and 4chan - you think that is bile, fine.
I am tolerant of your views and you are intolerant of mine. I countered your position in good conscience without malice and with no interest in changing your views. I did not repeatedly or even once challenge you to prove your theory that hate speech does not exist. I did not in any way recommend you alter your views. I did not cast aspersions on your character. I diid not go ad hominem to insult and mock you and call you hilarious for your statements.
Accusing me of a hidden censorship agenda was nothing more than a cheap strategy to sabotage my words beyond face value and push your program. That was completely false, and damn harsh after my post describing my experiences. I can assure you that I support free expression of ideas. My direct ancestors wrote the Constitution, Jim!
You are the one who cannot accept that others think differently. Disagreement is not intolerance.
[Edited on 8/25/2019 by BrerRabbit]
Bile: A dark green or yellowish brown liquid produced by the liver and stored in the gall bladder and is used in digestion in the small intestine
Note: You do not want to be in the room with someone vomiting bile. The smell alone, don't get me started on how it looks, is enough to cause explosive projectile vomit. My wife had a gut infection and was covering the emergency room floor with it. Several of the doctors and nurses added to the mess.
Bile: A dark green or yellowish brown liquid produced by the liver and stored in the gall bladder and is used in digestion in the small intestine
Note: You do not want to be in the room with someone vomiting bile. The smell alone, don't get me started on how it looks, is enough to cause explosive projectile vomit. My wife had a gut infection and was covering the emergency room floor with it. Several of the doctors and nurses added to the mess
Sounds awful! Glad she pulled thru, I hope she has the defenses to protect against a repeat.
Well, by that definition I guess I wasn't spewing bile.
I don't think there is a legal definition of bile though - how could bile be prosecuted in a court of law? I suppose you could attack someone with bile, say hurl in their beer at the tavern, or pull an exorcist peasouper on the person in front of you at the Barry Manilow reunion concert - but then it is the assault, not the bile that is the offense, if indeed you could prove that the bile attack was premeditated.
I've been trying to find a definition of "Hate Speech" for several days. Many websites talk about it, the Supreme court has said it is protected. Carlos Santana has been accused of it (look up Carlos Santana hate speech on new Georgia Law), but nobody gives a definition of it except in very broad, general terms where hate speech laws have been enacted.
Reading some of the results from those locations where what they determine (still without a definition or example) is hate speech, people are in jail for what is said on the web, especially in places like Hitting The Web.
Considering what some of those sentences are, and for what was written, there are a lot of posters here that should be glad we don't have hate speech laws in the US.
If we were in Canada, some of the posters who show their disdain for the President with "mean and hurtful words" could see themselves in jail. It could be a long time since there are no minimum punishments for hate speech crimes. More likely you would be faced with a significant fine.
Here in Georgia, there is a law on the books about "fighting words". If someone speaks words with the intent to cause you anger or humiliation, and you strike them, you are the aggrieved party and it is considered self defense-to a point.
So, go ahead and push for those hate speech laws. You might just find out it came back and bit you in the a$$.
How does recognition of the reality of hate speech translate into pushing for hate speech laws?
I will send a 20$ bill to the first person who quotes an HTW post calling for hate speech laws in the US.
NOT SO FAST THERE CRAFTY CARL!!! It has to be a post dated on or before Aug 24, 2019 - BEFORE TODAY AUG 25, 2019.
So no posting "I support hate speech laws" today or later just to collect twenty frogskins from old Brer Rabbit. Ha! Thought you had me there, didntcha? Damn, can't be too careful around this bunch.
[Edited on 8/26/2019 by BrerRabbit]
How does recognition of the reality of hate speech translate into pushing for hate speech laws?
I will send a 20$ bill to the first person who quotes an HTW post calling for hate speech laws in the US.
NOT SO FAST THERE CRAFTY CARL!!! It has to be a post dated on or before Aug 24, 2019 - BEFORE TODAY AUG 25, 2019.
So no posting "I support hate speech laws" today or later just to collect twenty frogskins from old Brer Rabbit. Ha! Thought you had me there, didntcha? Damn, can't be too careful around this bunch.
[Edited on 8/26/2019 by BrerRabbit]
Sorry, I haven't seen anyone here on this site espousing them.
I have seen many "progressive" thinkers urging the adoption of them. (Just look it up on the web.) Some of those folks believe that if you don't have the same views as them that any words going against their way of thinking is hate speech.
Most, when shown it can go both ways, decide not to support passing those laws.
