Triggered: Stories to make you mad.

Originally posted by Newjak
If you think that rule gets followed I have a long history of dead civilians to show you :/

Also various degrees of violent protests have changed things before. The violent labor disputes in industry in the US showed some of that. There were the Stonewall riots.

The american revolution started with violent protests.

If rules were enough to prevent an injustice, we would need no rules.

My point is, when people DO cross that line, we try them for war crimes. We don't justify attacking innocents, as you apparently are attempting to do.

Voting rights, or the right to simply exist in society, are radically different causes to arguing police reforms and systemic racism. Especially when police targeting blacks isn't a settled narrative in the hearts and minds of the general population.

But more importantly, this is an issue that the public is already engaged on. They see violence, and don't think "This is a reasonable response to oppression." They think the demonstrations are run by lunatics who are no different from terrorists that fly planes into buildings. These kinds of violent protests are how you LOSE support, not gain it.

Originally posted by Newjak
I mean first it took brainwashing a public enough to go along with the violence. To pretend the hate speech Hitler used didn't facilitate violence afterwards would be rewriting history.

Also I went back and looked at the survey that you guys were mentioning. It seems kind of flawed with the way the data is presented. It never actually mentions what types of speech would these students find worthy of violence and too what degree of violence they would resort to.

They never even classify what violence represents in this scenario. Is it tearing down signs. Occupying space to keep people away. Yelling at people. Or shooting people. Burning down property. What exactly constitutes violence here for these individuals.

I'm not surprised generic questions like these would lead to these types of numbers because if it's ambiguous enough you're going to get generic data that isn't as useful.

So I would take this survey with a major grain of salt because the data is kind of unclear.

First it took economic depression after a war and then the great depression to get the public to that state to begin with. It required great instability in Germany to make them so susceptible. So no, it is not as simple as "his speeches" and it's insanity to even bring Hitler into this specific discussion about snowflakes on college campuses who can't tolerate speech they do not like.

And I highly doubt these leftists view tearing down signs as violent acts. Or that them yelling is violent. Of course we have no way to know that, but I don't think it's a silly assumption to make. And the kicker is they probably do consider hate speech violence though, but they don't see their own speech as such.

And we already have at least one person making excuses for their acceptance of violence by trying to bring up speeches by Hitler lol. It's crazy.

And why in your opinion do you feel those on the left were more supportive of violence(in whatever form) than those on the right?

Originally posted by Surtur
First it took economic depression after a war and then the great depression to get the public to that state to begin with. It required great instability in Germany to make them so susceptible. So no, it is not as simple as "his speeches" and it's insanity to even bring Hitler into this specific discussion about snowflakes on college campuses who can't tolerate speech they do not like.

And I highly doubt these leftists view tearing down signs as violent acts. Or that them yelling is violent. Of course we have no way to know that, but I don't think it's a silly assumption to make. And the kicker is they probably do consider hate speech violence though, but they don't see their own speech as such.

And we already have at least one person making excuses for their acceptance of violence by trying to bring up speeches by Hitler lol. It's crazy.

And why in your opinion do you feel those on the left were more supportive of violence(in whatever form) than those on the right?

And to add further to the point about what the left would view as violence from their own side I point you to the looting and property destruction as a result of George Flloyd and Brreonna Taylor and the day ending in Y and the reaction and how we are told it is not violence.

They call riots protests and we are to believe they would think their side is being violent for removing signs? Yeah nope.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Words and articulation of anger and hate often lead to violence.

Violence begets violence too.

Cuz see it won't just be okay for the left to get violent to stop speech, it will then be okay for the right to do it too. And you will quickly discover, to your dismay, that you have erred.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Words and articulation of anger and hate often lead to violence.

Violence is a personal choice.

If someone says words of hate to me, and I strike out in anger, that is on ME.

I could simply choose to respond with words in kind, or ignore him.

Acting on emotion is ALWAYS a conscious decision.

Originally posted by cdtm
If rules were enough to prevent an injustice, we would need no rules.

My point is, when people DO cross that line, we try them for war crimes. We don't justify attacking innocents, as you apparently are attempting to do.

Voting rights, or the right to simply exist in society, are radically different causes to arguing police reforms and systemic racism. Especially when police targeting blacks isn't a settled narrative in the hearts and minds of the general population.

But more importantly, this is an issue that the public is already engaged on. They see violence, and don't think "This is a reasonable response to oppression." They think the demonstrations are run by lunatics who are no different from terrorists that fly planes into buildings. These kinds of violent protests are how you LOSE support, not gain it.

Originally posted by Surtur
First it took economic depression after a war and then the great depression to get the public to that state to begin with. It required great instability in Germany to make them so susceptible. So no, it is not as simple as "his speeches" and it's insanity to even bring Hitler into this specific discussion about snowflakes on college campuses who can't tolerate speech they do not like.

And I highly doubt these leftists view tearing down signs as violent acts. Or that them yelling is violent. Of course we have no way to know that, but I don't think it's a silly assumption to make. And the kicker is they probably do consider hate speech violence though, but they don't see their own speech as such.

And we already have at least one person making excuses for their acceptance of violence by trying to bring up speeches by Hitler lol. It's crazy.

And why in your opinion do you feel those on the left were more supportive of violence(in whatever form) than those on the right?

Actually if the survey was reasonable and well thought out we wouldn't need to make assumptions about the data.

If they had reasonable questions on it such as "If you are afraid to express your views is it because you fear you would receive physical harm to yourself" it would be a lot less ambiguous.

The same goes for the subject of violence and speech. If they asked some better questions we would know what the people constitute as violence and specifically what kinds of speech they think provokes that "violence".

And early on nazis loved playing the victim they would have loved to be attacked in order to stop a speech.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yes those also played a part but that also doesn't negate the propaganda efforts needed to surge them into accepting violence does it?

No, but there were outside factors to the point that bringing up Hitler in this context is not valid.

Actually if the survey was reasonable and well thought out we wouldn't need to make assumptions about the data.

If they had reasonable questions on it such as "If you are afraid to express your views is it because you fear you would receive physical harm to yourself" it would be a lot less ambiguous.

The same goes for the subject of violence and speech. If they asked some better questions we would know what the people constitute as violence and specifically what kinds of speech they think provokes that "violence".

*shrugs* and yet I still think it's naive if you believe those on the left would view their own removing of signs or their own screaming as acts of violence.

If I was a betting man I'd bet they'd label the removing of signs as passive resistance or something silly like that. Not a violent act.

Originally posted by Surtur
No, but there were outside factors to the point that bringing up Hitler in this context is not valid.

*shrugs* and yet I still think it's naive if you believe those on the left would view their own removing of signs or their own screaming as acts of violence.

If I was a betting man I'd bet they'd label the removing of signs as passive resistance or something silly like that. Not a violent act.

The point being that hate speech being used as a weapon to incite violence in history should not be up for debate.

It's not about naivety it's about accuracy. The point being I would not take the data from that survey to jump to the conclusions you are. And I was a betting man I would bet that the number one reason most liberals would reject speech from campus is because they think the speech actually harms other humans. I would also bet their definition of violence doesn't equate to actual physical violence against humans most often.

For instance anti-lgbtq speech only has one desire and that is eliminate LGBTQ members and their rights from society. The idea those types of speeches would be anything but hate speech is asinine.

Of course I wouldn't jump to that conclusion based off of this study lol. 😉

The problem is inciting violence already is against the law here. The other problem is people only agree on the definition of "hate speech" at the most basic level. "Kill all the jews" is something a vast majority on either side would agree is hate speech. Yet the term has been abused and applied to things that are not actually hate speech.

Based on how they define violence I feel safe in thinking that these people would not view leftists stealing signs or shouting as acts of violence. Nor do they think blocking someone is violence since they seem to cry whenever they block a car and it hits them.

And again we come to the problem when people constantly misuse the anti-LBGTQ label or the transphobic label. For some of those people saying a man can't be a woman just cuz he feels that way is hate speech. Hell for some, they view using a transgender womans real name as a violent act. For example, calling Caitlyn Bruce would be violent.

This is the problem in a nutshell. These people can't be trusted to define what is hateful.

Originally posted by Newjak
There's always outside factors. Heck we are currently in one of the most economically unequal times in American history. In fact if you pick any point in history there will be reasons people will come up with to commit violence.

The point being that hate speech being used as a weapon to incite violence in history should not be up for debate.

It's not about naivety it's about accuracy. The point being I would not take the data from that survey to jump to the conclusions you are. And I was a betting man I would bet that the number one reason most liberals would reject speech from campus is because they think the speech actually harms other humans. I would also bet their definition of violence doesn't equate to actual physical violence against humans most often.

For instance anti-lgbtq speech only has one desire and that is eliminate LGBTQ members and their rights from society. The idea those types of speeches would be anything but hate speech is asinine.

Of course I wouldn't jump to that conclusion based off of this study lol. 😉

Your assumption about anti-LGBT rhetoric is probably correct.

I still don't feel it justifies banning speech.

The problem with the "hate speech" label, is the subjectivity behind it, and the thin line that makes speech banning an easy weapon against legitimate opposition party speech.

For example, I find the Westboro baptist church speech highly offensive. Especially when they rant against children during funeral processions.

I would not condone silencing them.

Lol speaking of blocking cops that reminds me:

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1312309478667083777

I love how they start screaming "medic, medic".

Originally posted by cdtm
Your assumption about anti-LGBT rhetoric is probably correct.

I still don't feel it justifies banning speech.

The problem with the "hate speech" label, is the subjectivity behind it, and the thin line that makes speech banning an easy weapon against legitimate opposition party speech.

For example, I find the Westboro baptist church speech highly offensive. Especially when they rant against children during funeral processions.

I would not condone silencing them.

It depends again on what is anti-LBGTQ speech.

Some might say a person saying a man can't be a woman due to feelings is anti-LBGTQ(jesus how many letters are we going to add?). Hell I've been accused of that for saying it.

I don't want to remove any of their rights nor do I want them removed from society.

Originally posted by cdtm
Your assumption about anti-LGBT rhetoric is probably correct.

I still don't feel it justifies banning speech.

The problem with the "hate speech" label, is the subjectivity behind it, and the thin line that makes speech banning an easy weapon against legitimate opposition party speech.

For example, I find the Westboro baptist church speech highly offensive. Especially when they rant against children during funeral processions.

I would not condone silencing them.

The problem with speech is people see it in a lot more abstract terms and often ignore the very real damage that speech backed by action can have.

Also I think people often think the freedom of speech means the freedom to say whatever whenever without consequences. Which even in America today is not true. You yell bomb in a crowded theater you're getting fined and going to jail most likely.

Once again though those have immediate impacts. Hate speech itself is harder for people to understand the repercussions of it because they aren't generally felt immediately.

In this regard I actually think Nazi Germany is a very apt metaphor. Hitler didn't start by saying kill all Jews. He and the Nazi party worked hard to begin small and sway the public opinion which lead to more direct harm later down the line.

Similar hate speech was used for segregation before the Civil Rights movements.

I do think it's a tricky conversation to have. Do I think the government should be in that business? Maybe from a discrimination stand point.

I think the bigger responsibility falls on the general public to not give them the appropriate forums to let their hateful ideas grow. Such as students boycotting and demanding they not be allowed to have events on college campuses or allowing them ad time on television networks.

The Transsexual discussion I think is more nuanced then we can probably get into here but I still think it is hate speech because it still used to undermine specific people by making it harder for them to gain acceptance. Often by people with very little to no understanding of actual biology or societal gender norms.

Originally posted by Newjak
There are going to be thin lines on almost any topic. Even the freedom to commit violence exists within our society as self defense.

The problem with speech is people see it in a lot more abstract terms and often ignore the very real damage that speech backed by action can have.

It's not like violently suppressing speech you don't agree with wouldn't have caused real damage as well.

Also I think people often think the freedom of speech means the freedom to say whatever whenever without consequences. Which even in America today is not true. You yell bomb in a crowded theater you're getting fined and going to jail most likely.

Once again though those have immediate impacts. Hate speech itself is harder for people to understand the repercussions of it because they aren't generally felt immediately.

Yes, we do have laws that you can't incite violence, etc. I think most people know that.

In this regard I actually think Nazi Germany is a very apt metaphor. Hitler didn't start by saying kill all Jews. He and the Nazi party worked hard to begin small and sway the public opinion which lead to more direct harm later down the line.

Similar hate speech was used for segregation before the Civil Rights movements

It's not because violently stopping Hitler from speaking at the point in his life when he wasn't outright saying to kill jews would have just been used by the nazis to play the victim. Then even more nazis would show up to the next speech in order to prevent it from happening again.

Yet the implication seems to be if people had violently stopped Hitler from speaking early on Nazi Germany would have never become a thing. Which just isn't true.

I do think it's a tricky conversation to have. Do I think the government should be in that business? Maybe from a discrimination stand point.

The government should only get involved if you're inciting violence IMO.

I think the bigger responsibility falls on the general public to not give them the appropriate forums to let their hateful ideas grow. Such as students boycotting and demanding they not be allowed to have events on college campuses or allowing them ad time on television networks.

If a school chooses not to invite someone to speak that is their choice. If they do invite them then the students have the right to boycott it. What they do not have the right to do is block people from attending or try to use violence or threaten violence to prevent it from happening. And there is no argument where going "but Hitlers speeches" makes those actions valid.

The Transsexual discussion I think is more nuanced then we can probably get into here but I still think it is hate speech because it still used to undermine specific people by making it harder for them to gain acceptance. Often by people with very little to no understanding of actual biology or societal gender norms.

Therein lies the problem: many do not feel it is hate speech. So who do we then let decide what is and is not hate speech? This is the same problem we run into with you saying the government should get involved in stopping discriminatory speech. People have wildly different views of what the term discrimination even means. Those on the right would call affirmative action discrimination, those on the left would say no it's not it is making up for past discrimination. Especially in these highly partisan times I think it would be insane to want the government to have any say in our speech beyond "you can't incite violence".

Would you honestly want Trump and his admin policing speech? Or an admin run by Biden doing so?

Trigger warning, Tim Pool video:

Riots Erupt In Seattle, Leftists Throw Explosives At Cops, The Violence Has Become Normalized

YouTube video

*smh* Pathetic.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's not like violently suppressing speech you don't agree with wouldn't have caused real damage as well.

Yes, we do have laws that you can't incite violence, etc. I think most people know that.

It's not because violently stopping Hitler from speaking at the point in his life when he wasn't outright saying to kill jews would have just been used by the nazis to play the victim. Then even more nazis would show up to the next speech in order to prevent it from happening again.

Yet the implication seems to be if people had violently stopped Hitler from speaking early on Nazi Germany would have never become a thing. Which just isn't true.

The government should only get involved if you're inciting violence IMO.

If a school chooses not to invite someone to speak that is their choice. If they do invite them then the students have the right to boycott it. What they do not have the right to do is block people from attending or try to use violence or threaten violence to prevent it from happening. And there is no argument where going "but Hitlers speeches" makes those actions valid.

Therein lies the problem: many do not feel it is hate speech. So who do we then let decide what is and is not hate speech? This is the same problem we run into with you saying the government should get involved in stopping discriminatory speech. People have wildly different views of what the term discrimination even means. Those on the right would call affirmative action discrimination, those on the left would say no it's not it is making up for past discrimination. Especially in these highly partisan times I think it would be insane to want the government to have any say in our speech beyond "you can't incite violence".

As in come and take my guns over my cold dead body. Or we will always fight for freedom. Entire militias have been dedicated to this idea. Even the general consensus from the right is you need to fight even if it means violence to protect your values. shrug

Also we don't know if anything could have stopped Hitler's rise but to pretend violence has never altered the course for better is itself not true. Even if we want to not be the norm there are still instances violence has stopped terrible things from happening. After all violent protests here in America got some of our best labor laws passed.

I also do agree that there can ambiguity on what is considered hate speech and discrimination. There is also power and power needs to be checked so it can not be abused. Although I don't believe that should inherently keep it from being talked about and ruled on. After all real hate speech still likes to live in the grey areas and cause harm. Which is not something you want to just ignore.

I think the simplest definition of hate speech for me though is ideas and agendas that make otherwise harmless issues into ones that harm people.

For instance if you don't want to believe a person can change their genders fine. I think you're incredibly misinformed. To advocate for policy that aligns with that misinformed information causes harm or if it leads to treating these people as second class citizens.

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm actually kind of surprised a conservative would lean that route about Nazi Germany. Considering there is a major protect your right via violence mantra from the right.

As in come and take my guns over my cold dead body. Or we will always fight for freedom. Entire militias have been dedicated to this idea. Even the general consensus from the right is you need to fight even if it means violence to protect your values. shrug

That might be from some on the right. Though I'd say the authorities coming to forcefully take guns that you legally purchased is not the same as violently suppressing speech.

Also we don't know if anything could have stopped Hitler's rise but to pretend violence has never altered the course for better is itself not true. Even if we want to not be the norm there are still instances violence has stopped terrible things from happening. After all violent protests here in America got some of our best labor laws passed.

We don't know if it would stop Hitler true, but we can attempt to extrapolate what might have happened based on the tactics used by nazis. They absolutely would play the victim here and use it to drum up support. So I don't think it would have helped.

But when has violently suppressing speech ever altered a course for the better?

I also do agree that there can ambiguity on what is considered hate speech and discrimination. There is also power and power needs to be checked so it can not be abused. Although I don't believe that should inherently keep it from being talked about and ruled on. After all real hate speech still likes to live in the grey areas and cause harm. Which is not something you want to just ignore.

I think the simplest definition of hate speech for me though is ideas and agendas that make otherwise harmless issues into ones that harm people.

For instance if you don't want to believe a person can change their genders fine. I think you're incredibly misinformed. To advocate for policy that aligns with that misinformed information causes harm or if it leads to treating these people as second class citizens.

I certainly don't think there should be policies to prevent people from identifying as a certain gender. I'd be against that just like I'd be against trying to criminalize calling someone the wrong pronoun on purpose.

Originally posted by Surtur
That might be from some on the right. Though I'd say the authorities coming to forcefully take guns that you legally purchased is not the same as violently suppressing speech.

We don't know if it would stop Hitler true, but we can attempt to extrapolate what might have happened based on the tactics used by nazis. They absolutely would play the victim here and use it to drum up support. So I don't think it would have helped.

It could have also exposed them for the people they were. Of course like you said we can't know for sure. Still we do know that from violent beginnings long lasting change has been achieved for the better sometimes.

Originally posted by Surtur
But when has violently suppressing speech ever altered a course for the better?

I certainly don't think there should be policies to prevent people from identifying as a certain gender. I'd be against that just like I'd be against trying to criminalize calling someone the wrong pronoun on purpose.

On the flip side though we do have very real examples of where hate speech left unchecked as caused harm to others. Often times because hate speech by those with power become action. Still all we have to do is look at teen suicide rates for LGBTQ individuals. The number one cited reason is for not being accepted by society for who they are. So here we have an instance where unchecked hate speech causes harm which is a problem.

I also wouldn't necessarily call this violently suppressing speech as it protecting yourselves from violent ideas. Inherently hate speech exists to harm others for things beyond their control. Often these actions become systemic if the people have power to make their hate into law or have the law protect them instead of the people being harmed.

I think our current system has some of the right ideas. Instead of just banning speech if we punish the actions that stem from them like discriminatory business practices it helps.

Although if the people whose hateful beliefs have enough power they can just ignore these or tie them up. We've seen this a lot in the LGBTQ discrimination cases where businesses refuse service to them.

Germany also has had to deal with this so it's possibly a good idea to turn towards their system as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung#:~:text=For%20any%20hate%20speech%20to,dignity%20of%20others%20by%20reviling%2C