Jump to content

Hate speech


B725
 Share

Recommended Posts

Following on from the Elon Musk interview with the BBC reporter going on about hate speech on twitter, what or who actually decides what is hate speech. As far as I know it's not illegal to hate anyone but there's almost an obsession about hate speech, 5 or 6 police going in a pub because 1 person complaining about the gollywogs behind the bar, will Fairy liquid be next to go, it seems now you cannot say anything about owt without someone taking offence it really has become a sad and spiteful world we live in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the same thing with pro nouns with what people are now deciding what they should be addressed as, seeing as there are so many if you dont say which one first time they start bumping their gums. God only knows what the world will be like in another 20 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Personally, as a person with Jewish ancestry on one side of my family. I would rather people were allowed to say what they think and we get it all out in the open. Then we all know where we stand.

Banning hate speech doesn't ban hate.

I'm with you on this one. We should have freedom to express opinions openly, better for all even if you may find the subject upsetting 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will hate speech by antis against the minority of country folk carrying out legal activities be treated with the same gravity by the police as a bunch of dolls on a windowsill? I think not as some hate speech is clearly more equal than other hate speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said on the other thread (about the 'Golly' pub) - we have people going around on the lookout for where they can take offence.  It is mainly to do with ethnicity, non conventional m/f gender and religion, and much less about 'plain m/f' gender, ageism, disability etc.

I can't really understand why other than it has simply become 'fashionable' or 'trendy' - and I have no idea why that should be.  Unfortunately 'officialdom' (police etc.), 'celebrities' (most of whom I have never heard of) and 'influencers' (don't even know what they are!) have embraced the fashion with such things as going down on one knee, wearing rainbow colours, sending offenders to the wrong single sex prisons, and other attention grabbing stunts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate speech is speech which directly encourages violence.

 

If I give a speech in public about how much I hate bald-headed people and how they need to go out and buy a wig then that is not hate speech.

 

Conversely, if I give a speech in public where I’m encouraging the masses to physically assault bald-headed people then that is hate speech - I am inciting violence.

 

The former example is me exercising my right to free speech. The latter example is me inciting violence and encouraging criminal activity, and therefore should be illegal. That is where we should draw the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, 243deer said:

Will hate speech by antis against the minority of country folk carrying out legal activities be treated with the same gravity by the police as a bunch of dolls on a windowsill? I think not as some hate speech is clearly more equal than other hate speech.

No, of course not, doesn't fit the lefts ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

As I said on the other thread (about the 'Golly' pub) - we have people going around on the lookout for where they can take offence.  It is mainly to do with ethnicity, non conventional m/f gender and religion, and much less about 'plain m/f' gender, ageism, disability etc.

I can't really understand why other than it has simply become 'fashionable' or 'trendy' - and I have no idea why that should be.  Unfortunately 'officialdom' (police etc.), 'celebrities' (most of whom I have never heard of) and 'influencers' (don't even know what they are!) have embraced the fashion with such things as going down on one knee, wearing rainbow colours, sending offenders to the wrong single sex prisons, and other attention grabbing stunts.

Started years ago with the indoctrination in schools and Universities. If you thinks it's bad, just look at the States!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

It's the same thing with pro nouns with what people are now deciding what they should be addressed as, seeing as there are so many if you dont say which one first time they start bumping their gums.

There was a video on Youtube where a man addressed the issue of pronouns. 

He said that he identified as "handsome and brilliant". He was quite happy to address those who wanted to be different with their chosen pronoun, provided that they addressed him as "handsome and brilliant".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Genghis said:

Hate speech is speech which directly encourages violence.

 

 

It should be but the woke agenda has well and truely moved those goalposts. Any form of criticism of one of their pet causes is branded hate speech by them 

And, if you are in many jobs in the public sector these days it could well be enough to lose you your job.

Edited by Vince Green
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Genghis said:

Hate speech is speech which directly encourages violence.

 

If I give a speech in public about how much I hate bald-headed people and how they need to go out and buy a wig then that is not hate speech.

 

Conversely, if I give a speech in public where I’m encouraging the masses to physically assault bald-headed people then that is hate speech - I am inciting violence.

 

The former example is me exercising my right to free speech. The latter example is me inciting violence and encouraging criminal activity, and therefore should be illegal. That is where we should draw the line.

Well, it’s a theory anyway. But what you’ve written is neither what the law says or how it works in practice.

2 hours ago, Jollygood said:

Shouldn't be an issue of contention that hate speech is bad, should it

Shouldn’t attempting to outlaw emotions be an uncontentiously stupid idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Well, it’s a theory anyway. But what you’ve written is neither what the law says or how it works in practice.

It’s the most logical answer. Other definitions have shades of grey, such as anti-white slurs not being counted as hate speech but anti-black slurs are. The current law is not a reliable benchmark for a definition of ‘hate speech’ as it’s being constantly modified.

 

For the record, anti-white slurs don’t upset me. I don’t care if someone hates me based on the colour of my skin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, everything you’ve written is completely irrelevant to the real world, or the UK at least, where people are being arrested & charged for hate crimes because they “caused someone anxiety on the internet “

Your fantasy-land definitions of what does & does not constitute hate speech is not going to make one iota of difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Genghis said:

Hate speech is speech which directly encourages violence.

 

If I give a speech in public about how much I hate bald-headed people and how they need to go out and buy a wig then that is not hate s

 

Hey just watch what your saying ! It's not our fault that we are frolicky challenged !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Genghis said:

 

The former example is me exercising my right to free speech. The latter example is me inciting violence and encouraging criminal activity, and therefore should be illegal. That is where we should draw the line.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Once again, everything you’ve written is completely irrelevant to the real world, or the UK at least, where people are being arrested & charged for hate crimes because they “caused someone anxiety on the internet “

Your fantasy-land definitions of what does & does not constitute hate speech is not going to make one iota of difference.

Confused as to what exactly you’re arguing with me about tbh.
 

Are you telling me that what I am posting is only my opinion? Of course it is. Who else’s opinion would it be?

 

If you’re only interested in what the current legal definition of hate speech is then you can Google it and this thread would be pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...