What's the counter argument to allowing hate speech other than >muh first ammendment
It's cruel and unnecessary.
Hate speech is subjectives. What you just said it hate speech.
FUCKING RETARDED NIGGER FAGGOT
>>74673949
>unnecessary
Same applies to feelings
>muh x amendment
liberty is inviolate. governments are what change; government gets disposed and rebuilt.
anyone who memes this faggot argument should just be shot.
>>74673949
>it's cruel and unnecessary
so is thought policing just so your fee fees dont get hurt
>>74673949
I think its because /pol/ is retarded
the problem with forbidding hate speech is because ANYTHING can be hate speech in the right context and the definition is too flexible
>>74673949
Because we have the same right to say what we want as your people that can create their own bullshit gender.
>>74673949
Because people need to grow a set of testicles and deal with "hurtful" words.
On the other hand, people who threaten to kill entire groups of people online belong in jail. Lets start with BLM and the #killallmen feminists.
>>74673949
meanings for words change over time. lessen and strengthen in Severity and base on who says it.
who decides what is considered hate speech? according to most US collage students, simply disagreeing with them is hate speech.
Also, Faggot used to refur to a bundle of sticks. and in the UK "Fag" usually refurs to a cigarette.
>>74673949
define hate speech?
Is saying "I hate niggers" hate speech?
If you don't like what someone says you can ignore it or call them out on it and start a dialogue. That is how democracy works. You don't get to arbitrarily decide some thing is hate speech and therefore off limits.
Freedom of speech means having a productive dialogue just as much as it does running around screaming "nigger nigger chicken dinner".
>>74674494
You're right. Words change. They are fickle and their original meaning is never preserved for long.
Sort of like "Shall not be infringed"...
>>74673949
oppressing the need to express your feeling in a non violent manner is a cruel and unnecessary.
>>74674494
>and base on who says it.
To clarify on this point, lack people call everyone and their mother nigga and Niggas. no one gives a single fook.
now if i as a white person walk up to a black person and say "Yo what up mah Nigga?!" well, i just earned myself a one way ticket to the hospital. assuming I survive the next 5-10 minute robbery and beat down.
>>74673949
Hate speech is too subjective and is an obvious attempt at silencing opposition
Hate Speech
>I don't like what that guy just said, therefore I want violence inflicted upon him
>>74673949
You don't have a right to not be offended. Nor is being offended "cruel".
>>74673949
The reason free speech exists is to be willing to allow people to say things which you dont agree with. If everyone only said things you agree with free speech wouldn't need to exist. The idea of being tolerant means to put up with things that make you uncomfortable. You dont have to tolerate things you already agree with.
Its the entire irony of the progressive left silencing ideas they dont like while simultaneously calling themselves tolerant. 1984 tier shit tbqhfamalammly
>>74674194
>Bu-bu Hitler did nothing wrong. Am I edgy yet, guys?
Censorship just makes it seem important. Let the idiots speak. If you cant argue their point then youre wrong.
>>74674806
You're a respectable leaf am.
>>74674871
>everyone on /pol/ are Nazis
m8. really?
>>74673949
the problem is defining what constitutes hate speech and what doesn't
It's a necessary evil.
Hate speech Is indeed a quite rude manner to attack a being,but If you try and kill It,People will abuse It's concept to arrest people with different ideals then another group of persons.
Look at my country,Trudeau Is trying to make insults towards trannies an arrestable offense,yet many of us still view them as mentally sick and not to be supported,no one has factual evidence in neither parts,but counting It as hate speech just puts up the police against your argument.
>>74673949
It's extremely useful for figuring out whether "social justice" policies and practices are actually working. If people could say whatever the fuck they wanted without consequence (with exceptions for explicit calls for violence or yelling "fire" in a movie theater, etc.), then you could monitor how the volume of hate speech changes over time.
If honesty were allowed, there would probably be a lot more hate speech NOW than there was 20 years ago, because 20 years ago Western governments weren't trying to facilitate brown invasions of white spaces as much as they are now. Leftists have this notion that forcing brown people on whites is going to make us like them, lol, when the opposite is true. But they don't know that because they control what we can say.
It's also useful on a practical level. Let's say I wanted to move to a black community for some reason, yet the black people that live there are effectively muzzled by PC bullshit from announcing their true opinions about whites. Let's say they actually really fucking hate white people, but they can't say so. If they can't express this, then I will move into that community without realizing that everyone there hates me and doesn't want me around. Whereas if they can speak freely, I can know that I should avoid that community.
>>74673949
You can't define hate speech fairly.
Also social outcry is enough to punish truly hateful speech. The government doesn't need to be a part of it.
>>74673949
Define hate speech first.
One man's hate is another man's love
>>74675128
>Hate speech Is indeed a quite rude manner to attack a being
Fucking shitskin, you have to go back.
>>74673949
Hate speech is a well defined term that nobody uses correctly.
For example if I say, fuck Jews, you and some retard SJW may think that is hate speech, though it is not.
The best argument against it is simply pointing out the fact that the other person is a retard and should learn what hate speech actually means.
>other than >muh first amendment
You mean the law of the land that is not meant to be changed? The Constitution is not a living document, it should be interpreted as literally as possible, and the Bill of Rights should never be changed under ANY circumstances.
So fucking sorry mean words hurt your feelings. Did your kindergarten teacher never tell you about sticks and stones?
>the year 2020
>it is now illegal for children to call each other poopy heads
>>74675161
>Implying it's hate speech when blacks do it.
The reason you let people say things that hurt you and upset you is, they may be right. You may learn things that benefit you, my make you aware of situations of which you where not aware.
A yes man is a complete waste of space. You can not learn from him.
If someone says they hate you, the question you must ask is why. You might actually deserve that hate.
>>74674871
Are you asking if I have a problem with throwing edgy stormfags in jail?
Because I don't
>>74675299
Yeah fuck should of said ideal,time to prepare the kayak for Mexico.
Also fuck you burger.
>>74673949
You exist in a common law system. Laws are based on rulings previous. To make laws against hate speech of the time, would open the door to future laws against speech.
>>74673949
people preferences are their own. you have no moral authority to force people to associate with others. if someone wants to refuse association based on skin color, rather than action, then that's their own choice. it is economically inefficient, and the individual will suffer economically to some degree.
for example, people who don't like racists won't associate with that person, or that person will miss out on relationships with member of that race who might be very economically connected, or smart. if that person owns a business, they will for sure miss the next great idea which happens to come from a member of that race, who could have been an employee otherwise.
there are very few real racists in the west. behavior is what most everyone looks at, but it is not racist to notice trends of behavior among races.
>>74673949
Cause once you allow a higher power decide what is or not hateful of you to say it will use it against you to silence you into obedience.
That's why there should be no limits on speech
>>74675651
What the fuck are you even trying to say?
Look you made a nice effort but clearly judging by your incomprehensible nigger scrawl, western countries aren't working out for you. You have to go back.
>>74673949
Here's your response OP
>>74675945
>for example, people who don't like racists won't associate with that person, or that person will miss out on relationships with member of that race who might be very economically connected, or smart. if that person owns a business, they will for sure miss the next great idea which happens to come from a member of that race, who could have been an employee
The opposite is also true. I don't support egalitarianism, and businesses that do don't get my patronage.
>>74673949
I have no problem with speech of any kind because the last time I checked words were words
>>74673949
>who is qualified to make the rules as to what is and is not allowed?
Thats not a problem for you, fag?
>>>/r/eddit
