the normalization of hate speech leads to violence. no matter how much fascists try to hide behind “the marketplace of ideas” or “freedom of speech” this is a fact. hold these motherfuckers accountable for their complicity.
@curiousgawker What's hate speech?
@curiousgawker So is your speech about holding these "motherfuckers" accountable for their complicity hate speech. As those "motherfuckers" are a group of people? It sounds like you hate them, or at least have prejudice against them.
@obi
Maybe a valid point, although this group is categorized by a feature that those people chose themself (and a disgusting one by that matter), not something they were born into like race or sexual orientation like usual with hate speech. Feels like there is an somewhat important difference.
Not sure if you necessarily need to hate someone to call him a motherfucker btw...
@curiousgawker
@bloc good point. I would argue that discrimination of any individual based on attributed group is bad. Especially if the person doesn't self identify with the group you are attributing him/her to @curiousgawker
@obi
I'd however argue that the point of discrimination is that someone is held accountable for some action or general pattern of behaviour attributed to a certain group of people which is defined by an attribute the individual has no direct control over. In contrast holding someone accountable (or calling a motherfucker) for hate speech aims directly at the action of the individual. Therefore this would on my personal account not count as discrimination.
@curiousgawker
@bloc @curiousgawker that is true, if there is a direct action my the offendy. Simply c.calling someone a Nazi doesn't meet the standard of proof to justify discrimination for example. You must show how the individual is a Nazi. If the person just "voted for trump" would u consider this proof of his grouping as a Nazi, and reasonable to attack the person thereafter?
@obi
Certainly not. What I'm personally talking about is concrete action (of hate speech in this example). Simply by voting for Trump I would maybe assume stupid "protest-voting", right-wing attitude or going for personal advantage, but that would be due to knowing about personal circumstances.
@curiousgawker
@bloc But where does hate speech begin and end, legally, definitionally, and ideologically. I personally dislike both sides of the US political spectrum, but mainly used by the left, with them doing similar things that they accuse the right doing. But it doesn't apply to them. It might start with something serious,
but it's weaponized as a tool of censorship. In another thread me and @curiousgawker are in, he is implying that Boebert saying "take your kids to church, not a drag show" directly resulted in the recent shooting at the LGBT club. I don't even think that motive has been established yet (tho hate seems probable), but do you also agree that Boebert's tweet is responsible? This kind of think will lead to an authoritarian state where all speech that isn't pro govt will be acted upon for "safety" reasons. I guess if you both agree on that, I know your positions, and you know mine, and we will just have to disagree.
@obi
Personally I would have trouble seeing a *direct* connection between the shooting and said tweet, however I would vote for speech like that giving way to an athmosphere in which shit like that can happen. I would still call this hate speech, as apparently the sentence solely aim to discredit a whole group of people while providing nothing to a constructive discussion whatsoever.
I agree that there are very thin lines between hate speech, hurting people and making legitimate points to advance valuable discussions. In Germany, a topic of extreme sensibility is National Socialism. It's rather easy to hurt any parties feeling with disrespectful speech, glorification could even land you in jail. However, since this is an important (and painful) part of national history, discussion is necessary ans declaring this a taboo topic would be of no use.
As I see it, hate speech and sensorship is a delicate topic, but there need to be red lines which must not be crossed. In this context, I this #qoto has a good general approach to this.
@obi
I don't even see a real disagreement here, rather a larger grey than a simple black and white.
Where I definitely agree though is that disagreement is fine, I think it's the fuel of a productive discussion. This is what I came here for, especially when being carried out in such a respectful and civilized way. Not very Internet-like :D
@curiousgawker
@bloc I'm not sure how we could come to terms in labeling things like "kids should go to church, not drag shows" being considered "hate speech". Hate speech isn't a thing to me. People hate each other all the time, and the ability to be allowed to think freely is what makes us human (to me). Banning speech (or "hate speech") is nothing more than authoritarianism with the veil of altruism disguising it. No one will be able to agree what constitutes "hate speech" and it will lead to the oppressing of people. The only cure for bad speech is good speech via open discussion, not suppression. @curiousgawker
@obi
I agree on the label "hate speech" being problematic in itself. Whatever it is, personally I wouldn't count "kids should go to church, not drag shows" to. It's those peoples right to speak there opinion, as well as its mine to think of them as dumb fucks. As you already implied, the important part is for us to oppose to this.
My personal red line, however, would be crossed with shit like calls for violence.
@curiousgawker
@bloc oh! Sp we are dont disagree! Glad we solved this lol @curiousgawker
@bloc gotcha, we disagree, mainly on the side of which way to error is all. Disagreements are fine 😀 @curiousgawker