CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Hate speech can be a good thing
Is it hate speech to call the catholic church a festering nest of pedophilia?
Is it hate speech to say that Muhammad was a pedophile and that islam is a religion of conquest and mysoginy?
Is it hate speech to say that Israel is responsible for genocide and that rich jews run our banks and our media and see the average person as a worthless slave especially if they're a goy?
YES IT IS, and that's a GOOD thing...because everything I said is TRUE and you're SUPPOSED TO HATE BELIEF SYSTEMS AND GROUPS WHICH ENCOURAGE AND CONDONE PEDOPHILIA, TERRORISM AND USING DECEITFUL TACTICS TO SATIATE YOUR BIG FAT ROTHSCHILD ZIONIST JEW GREED!!!!
Sometimes we need a little hate speech, because there are some groups who deserve to be hated.
I hate liver, pears, and black-eyed peas because of the granular texture they have and the dirt-like flavor of black-eyed peas. Is this hate speech, or just an honest opinion, one that you may agree, or disagree with?
I think all hate speech should be allowed so that people cannot use it as an excuse to silence people saying things like you've just said. As long as there are no threats of or direct calls to illegal action.
Exactly. I am not hurting anyone or calling for any kind of malicious action, I am simply pointing out that sometimes it is necessary to criticize certain groups, and hate speech laws can be used to shut people down who say the truth when it concerns said groups. If someone can't handle hearing something that is their problem.
I think all hate speech should be allowed so that people cannot use it as an excuse to silence people saying things like you've just said.
Agreed
As long as there are no threats of or direct calls to illegal action.
Even in this case, it is not clear if speech should be banned--or, at least, where the line should be drawn. For instance, guys often tend to "talk tough" some of which is an innuendo toward physical violence, if not an overt statement/threat. Much of that is relatively minor "sport-type" level talk/threat/action. Also, when I used to play Xbox live, I sometimes would hear people make some outrageous statements with anonymity (and impunity), though I don't think they should have the police called on them to face legal consequences for relatively brief, minor offenses. There is a strong danger in becoming overly alarmist
Thank you for pointing out that much of the function of threats is to engage in completely legitimate behavior.
For instance, guys often tend to "talk tough" some of which is an innuendo toward physical violence, if not an overt statement/threat.
I think often people want to ban or nullify or eliminate this very important vertebrate behavior. This is foolish, not only because it is doomed to failure, but because it increases violence.
The basic options:
Often people divide threat/fear responses into fight or flight, but that ignores the other two, which are posture and submit. These are the middle ground that can prevent both the violence of fight and the loss (and frequently the resulting injustice) of flight. They are the most basic elements of the most primitive type of negotiation.
Posturing is the tough talk, including "innuendo toward physical violence" and overt threats that pointedly create opportunities for participants to bow out of the conflict without violence. This is verbal and nonverbal acting that presents warnings that if the terms are not agreed to, worse consequences will ensue.
Submitting is an agreement to terms. This normally involves less of a loss than flight would.
Negotiating to avoid violence
The stronger and more convincing the posturing, the more likely the opponent will submit (or flee), thus avoiding the actual violence.
Ineffective posturing is more likely to lead to violence, because if neither party believes the other will win the physical conflict, then they both will agree to fight, and violence ensues.
Posturing often includes so-called "hate-speech", as a way to underline or strengthen the impact of the threats, and improve the negotiation position.
It is critical to note that these statements are completely independent of the speaker's actual attitudes. Using racial slurs while posturing DOES NOT demonstrate that the speaker holds racist ideas, for exactly the same reason that insults about the opponent's parentage say nothing about what the speaker really thinks about the opponent's mom.
Because of this, the use of hate speech when posturing can be a good thing if it makes the posturing more effective, and thereby convinces the opponent to submit, thus avoiding violence.
Distinctions and Exclusions
Bear in mind, I am discussing talking to, not talking about.
Threats among a group and inciting violence to be visited upon a second group discourages negotiation, and instead of decreasing the likelihood of violence, this sort of hate speech _increases the likelihood of violence.
For example, Trump's posturing included
-- Sending Navy fleets to the Sea of Japan
--Telling Kim that his button is bigger
--Telling Kim that if he sends a missile to Guam, North Korea will suffer "fire and fury like the world has never seen."
This posturing was communication with the opponent in order to avoid violence by convincing Kim to submit, or at least to refrain from initiating a fight.
By contrast, Trump telling the Joint Chiefs they should attack North Korea is inciting violence, and seeks to avoid negotiation and engage in violence.
I agreed with your post, I would just like to add a bit to your final point concerning (potentially) inciting violence by talking about another group. Now, if the KKK or some other mischievous group is holding a private (or public) rally which is a soft/miniature version of the Nuremburg Rally's, I don't think it should be the speech that is made illegal, rather the police should investigate the matter since particular claims are being made with some background support. If, upon investigation, their statements seemed overwhelmingly credible (i.e. they absolutely intended to follow through on extreme acts of violence toward another group offensively), then police action can occur in this respect.
Importantly, it is not their words that would have gotten them into trouble, but their actions. For instance, if they say "Meet up at 'x' (location) on 'y' (time) with weapons, and from there we will attack group 'z'", and police investigate to see if their words were at all credible, I think it would be justified if legal intervention occurred at this point provided the members meet up at 'x' on 'y' with weapons--since they told us how that story ends.
Also, another point, I think the legal system has expanded well too far into "common violence" and relatively minor disputes that are best sorted out amongst the individuals/groups themselves without a centralized authority intervening and "breaking it up". In fact, (overwhelmingly) this has given highly passive-aggressive people (near) impunity in carrying out "bullying"-type behavior (since they know they are protected as long as they never cross the line of physical contact).
Consider, now bullies do not even require any courage whatsoever and the victims are handicapped in their ability to address the issue(s) since they can only be passive aggressive in return (even if they have courage to stand-up for themselves), rather than strong direct confrontation that may or may not lead to low level violence. For instance, if a bully were to taunt/tease another, post nasty/humiliating content on social media, ect. ect. ect. there is little (to nothing) the "victim" can do to stand up for themselves in this situation, as the bullies are now in the clear since the domain of direct confrontation has been pulled off the table. The Netflix series "13 Reasons Why" depicts this quite well (as do some other teenage/young adult series).
This is a very different dynamic than Gen X and before grew up with, where one had the ability to confront their attackers and undergo a process of self-growth by standing up for themselves. Now, spineless-type passive-aggressive bullies have free reign with Social Media and the helicopter/nanny state handicapping the "victim(s)". It is very sad to see all of the Social Media related humiliation/bullying suicides that occur nowadays. This was Progressives solution to a real social issue? Make it superficially look prettier though in reality orders of magnitude worse? This is gilded politics
Consider, in sports such as Basketball, if a "trash-talker"/taunter acts up directed at one or multiple players, they can be confronted with inside the context of the game in a "rough" though reasonable manner--which will definitely cause the "trash-talker" to think-twice before continuing the behavior. However, in every-day social life now (particularly for kids k-12 through college, ect.) this option has been taken off the table and in response they Progressive-types claim it has been "dealt with" since teasing, social media humiliation, ect. ect. "can't hurt you" while if you so much as put a finger on your attacker/abuser through direct confrontation (which actually requires courage, unlike Social Media abuses & passive aggressive behavior) then you are way "out of line" and subject to expulsion/arrest/criminal record/ect. ect. The lack of nuance I find truly astonishing
You made some sound observations about why violence within certain parameters can be a beneficial in stabilizing social conflicts, and why it is a problem that it has become so restricted as ceaseless supervision has become normal.
For instance, if a bully were to taunt/tease another, post nasty/humiliating content on social media, ect. ect. ect. there is little (to nothing) the "victim" can do to stand up for themselves in this situation, as the bullies are now in the clear since the domain of direct confrontation has been pulled off the table.
I assume violence is implied in the term "direct confrontation."
In a YouTube conversation with Camille Paglia, Dr. Jordan Peterson makes the observation that men can use physical fights to settle conflicts, and then move on in the relationship. He said that women instead resort to character assassination as the ultimate weapon, and there is no repairing the relationship after that.
He also observes that in male interactions, there is an understood line in verbal confrontation, and if either party crosses that line there will be violence. Peterson continued to say that this is a problem in confrontations between men and women because of the fact that the ironclad rule that men must not hit women allows women to violate the limits that are normally (in male-male interactions) enforced by the possibility of violence. This gives women the exact sort of advantage you referred to in your post.
The fact that millennial and post-millennial (gen Z) guys are now resorting to this sort of tactic is not only the result of helicopter parenting. I think it is also the result of a gynocentric move to make boys less masculine, pathologize rough and tumble play and fighting (which is normal/healthy in boys) and eliminate what many call "toxic" masculinity.
This all has included a concerted attempt to eliminate low level violence (minor scuffles and three-punch fights) that place a single blow on legal par with serious criminal activity.
The natural result is that too often boys end up doing one of three things:
--Acting like girls by trolling and engaging in cyber "bullying."
--Retreating to solitary lives of online porn and video gaming.
--Shooting the assholes at their schools, when previously they would have gotten into a fist fight and then moved on.
I think the legal system has expanded well too far into "common violence" and relatively minor disputes that are best sorted out amongst the individuals/groups themselves without a centralized authority intervening and "breaking it up". In fact, (overwhelmingly) this has given highly passive-aggressive people (near) impunity in carrying out "bullying"-type behavior (since they know they are protected as long as they never cross the line of physical contact).
This even extends to giving women tacit permission to use violence against men with impunity. If you watch the entire video of Ray Rice hitting (and knocking out) his fiancée. She hit him FOUR times, before he pushed her away. When she hit him again after that, he finally slugged her. Once. No man would have been given so many chances, but she got FIVE, yetbRice was ridiculed and punished for finally reacting.
Yes, I agree with your post. I would like to focus in on a few areas:
I assume violence is implied in the term "direct confrontation."
Not necessarily, however the potential for physical violence must be an option on the table if the other party goes well too far out of line, or else they would never take the other person seriously. Actually, this is essentially what you were discussing in the following paragraphs with your reference to Jordan Peterson. I would add, my use of "direct confrontation" is essentially exactly what in line with Peterson's concept of becoming a "monster", when need be.
The fact that millennial and post-millennial (gen Z) guys are now resorting to this sort of tactic is not only the result of helicopter parenting. I think it is also the result of a gynocentric move to make boys less masculine, pathologize rough and tumble play and fighting (which is normal/healthy in boys) and eliminate what many call "toxic" masculinity.
Yes, I agree. Actually, I think this has a lot to do with Progressivism winning the "Culture Wars" and putting a thin gold-cover over (perceived) problematic areas. That is, I view this issue as very similar to Affirmative Action, in many ways (note: I think AA may have had a legitimate function in the beginning, however we are well past that mark by now).
As for an assault on masculinity, I could hardly agree more. Also, how emasculating would it be for a guy to get cyber-bullied on Social Media, then come to school, see their "attackers"/abusers humiliate them in front of their face, ect. ect. and are not allowed to so much as stand up to them and push them down hard/against the wall (or some other such aggressive action) in order to show they will not be treated like that? In todays social climate (particularly in schools), there is a good chance you could face expulsion if not arrest and/or criminal record for minor transgressions such as this that are essentially a healthy, necessary part of growing up.
Also, yes, "toxic masculinity" is a horribly flawed concept that is often promoted by women, not men. What is wrong with Aragorn from Lord of the Rings? In fact, that is a very good model of a strong man as far as I'm concerned (I would only like to add intellectualism to that to make it an ideal archetype--amongst others).
This all has included a concerted attempt to eliminate low level violence (minor scuffles and three-punch fights) that place a single blow on legal par with serious criminal activity.
The natural result is that too often boys end up doing one of three things:
--Acting like girls by trolling and engaging in cyber "bullying."
--Retreating to solitary lives of online porn and video gaming.
--Shooting the assholes at their schools, when previously they would have gotten into a fist fight and then moved on.
Yes, as well as suicide more generally
This even extends to giving women tacit permission to use violence against men with impunity. If you watch the entire video of Ray Rice hitting (and knocking out) his fiancée. She hit him FOUR times, before he pushed her away. When she hit him again after that, he finally slugged her. Once. No man would have been given so many chances, but she got FIVE, yetbRice was ridiculed and punished for finally reacting.
I haven't seen the video you are referring to, although I am very familiar with the type of situations you are discussing. It is outrageous and an incredibly privileged status. My personal policy is that one should take into account the size/physical ability difference of the other party regardless of gender. That is, for instance, a 6'2 230lb guy (who is in very good shape) should not treat a 5'7 150lb guy (who is out of shape) the same way they would a person of similar size (when they would clearly need to try harder/take the actions more seriously). The amount of force necessary to restrain and/or otherwise stop the person is all that should be used (ideally), nothing more nor less.
Now, a woman does not have the right to hit/repeatedly hit you with impunity (as nobody would)--you would be justified in, for instance, wrapping them up/restraining them (assuming that is enough). Also, there is so much variability between sizes/strength level in men that I always find the "women are so much weaker, physical contact should be 100% off limits" line of argument to be flabbergasting. A smaller, un-athletic man knows they should be careful what they say to/behave toward Brock Lesnar--their size difference doesn't grant them immunity even though this is way past the standard size difference in men v. women. I support efforts for women to learn Martial Arts as well as basic physical training, there is no reason they should have to stay as vulnerable as nature provides. For example, the lady (Eowyn) from Lord of the Rings that goes to serve in the military effort who ultimately defeats the lead nasgul should be a perfect feminine icon (although it is essentially the opposite of modern-feminism--this is the type of "feminism" I am in full support of). Here is a link to a brief clip(s):
I agree that it is unclear where the line should be drawn. I know what you mean about Xbox live. I definitely think there is a place where the line should be drawn though, if some radical group is directly being instructed by their leader to, for example, vandalize property, that shouldn't be allowed.
I think all hate speech should be allowed so that people cannot use it as an excuse to silence people saying things like you've just said.
I'm afraid this makes very little sense. You can't permit hate speech on the grounds that there will be abuse of any law aimed to constrain it. This is exactly the same backward logic the NRA uses to object to anti-gun legislation. Of course there will be abuses, as there are in almost every situation involving law. But the fundamental point is that this detracts absolutely nothing from why the law was needed in the first place.
To give the most obvious example, hate speech laws would have shut the Nazis down a long time before they gathered enough power to start a world war. Hence, on the one hand, you have the argument that people should be able to say whatever they want, regardless of its impact on others, and on the other you have the results of that, which were 70 million deaths.
There are now other things in place to quell the rise of Nazi like groups to power in civilized countries, making hate speech laws unnecessary, and hate speech regulations may not have stopped the Nazis, they were clever enough that they may have gotten around it.
I disagree. The above isn't hate speech, rather simply a criticism, which is perfectly acceptable in the context of the law.
However, the problem arises when slander or libel, which are the most common examples of hate speech, begin to show their nasty faces.
Your president has said many things like the above, and hadn't gotten in trouble for it because it's not hate speech, slander or libel. If he had, someone would've probably impeached him by now.
I think that slander and libel can be bad, but if the speaker doesn't know it is slander/libel, i.e, they don't know that it is false information, I think they should be allowed to speak it. Otherwise people who think that someone is evil and deserves to be defamed might be afraid to do it in case they are found to be wrong, and charged with slander. I think people should be able to speak their beliefs.
I'm not an American either, so he's not my president.
I would rather have people express a hateful argument and then give us all a chance to talk about it than to have people hide their hate and not let it come out until they have a loaded gun in their hands.
And I agree there are some people so terrible that expressing tremendous anger towards them is not necessarily a bad thing.
However, despite the two points above, from what I've seen it is true about 3/4 of the time that the person accused of using hate speech is basically an ahole anyway.
Yes. But where can we draw a line between acceptable hate speech and unacceptable hate speech? I'd say that criticism and hate are fine, but things like death threats and malicious prejudice are pretty much unacceptable.
Death threats and incitements to criminal action are already illegal. Since, like me, you're from the U.K., have you seen the fact that people are being arrested here for mildly offensive jokes (Source 1) under hate speech laws?
Peaceful protests only work on people with conscience. The elite have no capacity for guilt- they become slave lords if not kept in check. We are tribal in our DNA. Tribalism resists outside control.
Hate is chaos
Chaos is the road to a new system
If you don’t understand the elite s power - the wealthiest people in the world are Joos. They are a minority by numbers.
And people of Nordic ancestry - you were tricked into following the old desert hooknose ‘s book. That book is the key to enslavement of whites(and blacks for that matter)
You gotta shed that old book. No we don’t have as much in writing we Caucasians- But we are older than the Semite
Any Non- Semitic people that have come to the light - I’d love to meet you!
In many cases, too many cases, there will always be an element who will interpret 'hate speeches as a veiled call to arms regardless of how hard the orator tries to stay within the guidelines of the law.
Hate, or inflammatory speeches will always stir emotions of violence in some people and in extreme cases will lead to murder.
That is murder(s) which would not have happened if some naive academic had not decided to exercise their right of the illusion of free speech.
Such irresponsible speeches in Northern Ireland led to countless murders as the SELF RIGHTEOUS RABBLE ROUSERS spewed out their hate speeches about ''THE OTHER SIDE''.
As people were slaughtered the inevitable tit for tat killings commenced and so 30 years of carnage and destruction began.
I am convinced that if the politicians of that period had shown compromise and spoken in conciliatory tones the so called 'troubles'' which caused the lives of over 3000 people along with 1000s more maimed and the shocking destruction of businesses with the ensuing loss of jobs could have been averted.
I place most of the blame for 30 years of hell in Northern Ireland firmly on the shoulders of the bellowing, hate preaching politicians such as Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams who stirred up the hotheads on both sides.
I would ask anyone to think long and hard before they go down the road of indulging in inflammatory speeches which will incite violence.
I place most of the blame for 30 years of hell in Northern Ireland firmly on the shoulders of the bellowing, hate preaching politicians such as Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams who stirred up the hotheads on both sides.
I would encourage you to take a more nuanced view, and distinguish between hate speech to people, and hate speech about people.
Read my obnoxiously long post on the other side for an explanation.
The two ( NOT SO ) subtle shades of hate speeches in Northern Ireland from the beginning of, and right through the entirety of 'the troubles' were Orange and Green.
Your blockbuster post is academically brilliant, but rendered null and void by the reality of the build up to, and during the course of the 30 long bloody years of butchery and destruction.
I do know what I'm talking about, I was there throughout this period and could associate a definite connection with the hate-mongering speeches of the extremist politicians and the inevitability of the ensuing murder and destruction.
Terrorist atrocities followed the politician's inflammatory speeches just as sure as day follows night.
No matter how well presented, reality will always eclipse academic fanciful notions.
The stark reality of the dangers of hate speeches is observable in glorious Technicolor, CinemaScope and Quadraphonic sound all around the world if you care to take a peek.
Terrorist atrocities followed the politician's inflammatory speeches just as sure as day follows night.
I am not sure whether the politicians and bombers agreed with each other?
Are you saying that people killed others because they did not like what opposing politicians said?
Are you saying that that the people killed others because they were encouraged to do so by politicians?
Are you saying that that the people killed others because of what politicians said about the victims?
Where the politicians saying hateful things, or saying that the country should be independent, and violence was the only way to achieve it?
What I am trying to nail down is the difference between whether the speech that caused the most damage was hateful or simply advocating violent political solutions (which does not necessarily imply hatred.) For example, saying, "We have to kill those people because they are trying to kill us," is likely to incite violence (if believed) but includes no hateful content.
In many cases, too many cases, there will always be an element who will interpret 'hate speeches as a veiled call to arms regardless of how hard the orator tries to stay within the guidelines of the law.
Antrim, hate speech itself is against the law, so I am afraid you are contradicting yourself.
Antrim, hate speech itself is against the law, so I am afraid you are contradicting yourself.
In the US, most of what is referred to as "hate speech" (insults, slurs, belittling stereotypes, etc.) is COMPLETELY LEGAL and protected by the First Amendment.
Inciting violence is illegal.
So are slander and libel (which must include unflattering statements of "fact" that the speaker/writer knew to be false. Hateful statements of opinion are completely protected by law.
In the US, most of what is referred to as "hate speech" (insults, slurs, belittling stereotypes, etc.) is COMPLETELY LEGAL
No, you are COMPLETELY WRONG.
Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been defined by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Starting in the 1940s U.S states began passing hate speech laws. In Beauharnais v. Illinois the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state of Illinois's hate speech laws. Illinois's laws punished expression that was offensive to racial ethnic and religious groups. After Beauharnais v. Illinois, the Supreme Court developed a free speech jurisprudence that loosened most aspects of the free speech doctrine.[3] In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."