Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
this is nonsense. define your terms.
Hate speech:Abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.Free speech:The right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.Got it? I promote civilized debate and discussion, and I know for a fact that racism, sexism, and that other bullshit does nothing for a good argument and only make a debate lean to violence.Hate speech is lack of control as you let your emotions take over and control you, and we all know shit goes downhill whenever people act on emotion.
you fail to make a principled distinction between hate speech and free speech, your descriptions depend on yet more terms you have not defined, or badly defined because of obvious overlapping. What is your definition of prejudice? Also, in order to enshrine your sentimental distinction, you have merely invoked a narrative that seeks to imply that anyone who challenges your 'rules' as promoters of violence, and to be intrinsically incapable of producing a good argument: this is an embarrassing and unprincipled way to impose your own emotionally entrenched worldview. Sexism and racism are accusations thrown around by people who are shielded by similar feelings and similar narratives, which are yet to be solidly reasoned-out, as they merely beg the question as they project unfair prejudice onto their opponents; which is ironic because they have never gone through the work of properly substantiating their own prejudicial restrictions. Abuse has proven to be a very subjective 'experience', which can be created due to the level of racialist/identitarian pride that someone believes they are owed by 'everyone else'. Threats to such things as identitarian pride, which have come to be re-labeled as self esteem, have similarly been hijacked by the ironically sexist and racially obsessed "egalitarian" hate mob, who always claim to be reacting defensively to the hate from others, merely because of not confirming the latest chapter in the growing dogmatic narrative of an ever increased sensitivity to invented grievance. This is the cost of creating loosely defined restrictions, they become host to imitators who can manipulate the context of a situation well enough to leverage the fundamentally nebulous and arbitrary restriction as a wedge to enforce their narcissistic psychopathology.
At the very least, you must separate the notion of prejudice from the notion of an opinion. It's impossible without fudging the issue with something like a vague narrative about when to impose ad hoc and automatic restriction on "wrong think" because it 'tends towards violence'. Why would anyone get violent if they aren't being made silent through force or being threatened: unless you are already assuming that the source of violence is from the reaction to the speaker (and not from the supposed hate 'speaker'), "defensive" reactions which you have already excused and validated in your mind, while projecting the blame onto the 'free speech' which you have merely labeled as hate because of conformity with your biased sentiments. Threats and abuse are not criminal forms of speech, they are criminal because they are crimes against a person's bodily integrity, which is a legally protected interest; and defamation is a crime against an individuals reputation, hate speech is related to generalised entities such as groups of persons, but they do not own the reputation of the group, and neither should speech be wrong on the basis that attacks the reputation of a group, unless an individual is specifically being defamed, and still, hate speech is under that scenario a redundant qualification. Giving groups their own rights is a disgusting form of racialist and sexist policy that has only spread the poisonous fascistic worldview of obsession with identity-consciousness.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!