CreateDebate


Debate Info

34
8
I hate those who deserve it Shut up neo-nazi
Debate Score:42
Arguments:34
Total Votes:47
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I hate those who deserve it (16)
 
 Shut up neo-nazi (7)

Debate Creator

LRyuuzaki(51) pic



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 those who deserve it

Side Score: 34
VS.

Shut up neo-nazi

Side Score: 8

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?

Side: I hate those who deserve it
Antrim(1287) Clarified
5 points

Not only is it a hate speech it's also racist.

Why do you dislike BLACK-EYED peas?

What's wrong with not liking albumen?

You should be ashamed of your prejudice against BLACK-EYED peas.

Side: I hate those who deserve it
HighFalutin(3402) Clarified
3 points

Ya got me, Padner. I should have said peas and left it at that. Color should never be brought up.

Side: I hate those who deserve it
4 points

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.

Side: I hate those who deserve it
5 points

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.

Side: I hate those who deserve it
xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
4 points

@Mack

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

Side: I hate those who deserve it
2 points

Hello, MathFan.

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.

Side: I hate those who deserve it
Mack(531) Clarified
2 points

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.

Side: I hate those who deserve it
NumberOne(422) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: Shut up neo-nazi
Mack(531) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: I hate those who deserve it
mrcatsam(663) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: I hate those who deserve it
Quantumhead(749) Disputed
1 point

I disagree. The above isn't hate speech, rather simply a criticism, which is perfectly acceptable in the context of the law.

Cats, I was speaking in general terms. I was not accusing anything said here of being hate speech. My apologies if this was unclear.

Side: Shut up neo-nazi
Antrim(1287) Disputed
1 point

The most common element in the majority hate speeches is their incitement to violence.

I think you mean impeached and not preached.

What were you/numberone saying about OUTLAW?

You and numberone. in any of your countless guises are as much a Brit as Vladimir Putin.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Side: Shut up neo-nazi
Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: I hate those who deserve it
2 points

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.

Side: I hate those who deserve it
1 point

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.

Side: I hate those who deserve it
WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

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?

Sources:

(1) http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/05/man-taught-dog-nazi-salutes-convicted-hate-crime-7207577/

Side: I hate those who deserve it

We love hate. We hate love....

repeat with me.

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.

What don’t you understand about this? It’s real

Side: I hate those who deserve it

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!

Side: I hate those who deserve it
excon(18260) Disputed
1 point

you were tricked into following the old desert hooknose ‘s book

Hello Nazi:

Why do you deny the holocaust when you yourself display vile HATRED for the Jews??? Clearly, if you could, you'd throw me into the ovens..

excon

Side: Shut up neo-nazi
1 point

I may not cook you. I have met some non-Zionist joo joos

You should go on YouTube and listen to Brother Nathaniel

He was born a Joo

Side: I hate those who deserve it
2 points

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.

Side: Shut up neo-nazi
marcusmoon(576) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: I hate those who deserve it
Antrim(1287) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: I hate those who deserve it
NumberOne(422) Disputed
0 points

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.

Side: I hate those who deserve it
marcusmoon(576) Disputed
1 point

Number One,

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.

Side: Shut up neo-nazi
Antrim(1287) Disputed
0 points

The title of the thread was ''HATE SPEECH can be a good thing.''

My post was an argument against this mindset along with real life instances depicting the dangers.

There was at least one proponent, Mack whose post and the thread's creator you should read.

You're clearly one of life's dysfunctional losers who finds some solace in posting meaningless counter-arguments.

Try going out more and get some fresh air.

A brisk walk will help to clear the cobwebs from your diseased brain, well, for a while anyway.

You contribution to this topic was in the negative.

But then, negative bullshiter = negative bullshit.

Side: Shut up neo-nazi