My point is that it’s a moving target that will be abused. The government should not and thankfully cannot regulate speech based on the grounds of “hate”. Hate is also not illegal. (At least in the US)
For example, Christians are taught to love the sinner but hate the sin. Homosexuality, drag queens, transgenderism are sins in Christianity. With your new law Christians are now censored because their worldview disagrees with yours.
Whoever has the right to define that term has immense power and that power will be abused just like the other labels in the meme.
They aren’t censored for believing those things are sinful. They’re being punished for trying to enforce their views on what a person should be on people who aren’t them. The minute I start having to care about what the Christian sitting next to me thinks is sinful because he might hurt me if I don’t, he loses the right to free speech, you get me?
I beg to differ. Some people want to be trans. Some people think being trans is unnatural and should therefore be illegal. There can be no halfway compromise on these issues. There can be no reminding people “hey, we’re all human, why can’t we just get along” when one group wants another to stop existing.
I agree there, but the ultimate hope would be that we could just calmly remind them to get along. I think assuming you can is the best way to live in a civilised society.
As for whether I’m an LLM, I’m probably not able to convince anyone either way. That means we’re close to the technological singularity. Many scholars and academics can speak similarly to me and make semi-decent arguments about technical topics.
While not pacifistic Christianity is non-violent. If someone claims to be a Christian and beats up a homosexual for “no reason” then they are sinning. This, also, is completely irrelevant to the argument I was making.
Everyone tries to enforce their views. You, I assume, want to enforce your world view of radical tolerance for [issue here] at the expense of someone elses ability to criticize it. Your neighbor might want to define hate speech as anything that violates Sharia law.
What we have now (which is no restriction on hate speech) is actually the best policy.
You, I assume, want to enforce your world view of radical tolerance for [issue here] at the expense of someone elses ability to criticize it
If that’s how you want to define the opinion that people shouldn’t be thrown in jail for providing abortions or gender affirming care, or that Tucker Carlson shouldn’t be allowed to go on TV and tell his followers that all drag queens are pedophiles, then so be it.
Sin is whatever. You can believe that all gays are going to go to turbo-hell, you can tell all your facebook friends, you can say you feel pity for us, I don’t care. As long as I’m allowed to live my life however I want, and you don’t come into my face and tell me not to, we’re good. But your right to swing your arms stops at my face. As soon as you start codifying your opinions into law, or advocating for violence against people who hold different beliefs than youlive their lives in a way contrary to your religion (which strangely only seems to come from people who self-identify as being on the right), we’re gonna have a problem.
This is (mostly) a different point and I’m not going to engage with it. Suffice it to say that hate speech isn’t a slippery slope it’s the bottom of the mountain. If such a policy is ever enacted it will be abused and used to persecute people.
You’re just redefining terms. It’s the same thing. If Twitter or Lemmy wants to block those things that’s fine. I would agree that social networks should try to maintain some sense of decency on their platforms. The government shouldn’t be involved though.
My point is that it’s a moving target that will be abused. The government should not and thankfully cannot regulate speech based on the grounds of “hate”. Hate is also not illegal. (At least in the US)
For example, Christians are taught to love the sinner but hate the sin. Homosexuality, drag queens, transgenderism are sins in Christianity. With your new law Christians are now censored because their worldview disagrees with yours.
Whoever has the right to define that term has immense power and that power will be abused just like the other labels in the meme.
They aren’t censored for believing those things are sinful. They’re being punished for trying to enforce their views on what a person should be on people who aren’t them. The minute I start having to care about what the Christian sitting next to me thinks is sinful because he might hurt me if I don’t, he loses the right to free speech, you get me?
Not if he’s just arguing with you in a way that outwardly appears calm, even if a little shocked or disgusted.
As long as I get to tell him just as calmly to fuck off and leave me alone, and he does, we’re good.
I believe in trying to enact compassion and peace. Most people are actually very similar and don’t want to be bothered by angry people.
I beg to differ. Some people want to be trans. Some people think being trans is unnatural and should therefore be illegal. There can be no halfway compromise on these issues. There can be no reminding people “hey, we’re all human, why can’t we just get along” when one group wants another to stop existing.
I agree there, but the ultimate hope would be that we could just calmly remind them to get along. I think assuming you can is the best way to live in a civilised society.
I have just demonstrated why we cannot. Did you listen to a single word I said?
Are you sure you’re not an LLM?
I don’t see how you demonstrated why we can’t.
As for whether I’m an LLM, I’m probably not able to convince anyone either way. That means we’re close to the technological singularity. Many scholars and academics can speak similarly to me and make semi-decent arguments about technical topics.
While not pacifistic Christianity is non-violent. If someone claims to be a Christian and beats up a homosexual for “no reason” then they are sinning. This, also, is completely irrelevant to the argument I was making.
Everyone tries to enforce their views. You, I assume, want to enforce your world view of radical tolerance for [issue here] at the expense of someone elses ability to criticize it. Your neighbor might want to define hate speech as anything that violates Sharia law.
What we have now (which is no restriction on hate speech) is actually the best policy.
If that’s how you want to define the opinion that people shouldn’t be thrown in jail for providing abortions or gender affirming care, or that Tucker Carlson shouldn’t be allowed to go on TV and tell his followers that all drag queens are pedophiles, then so be it.
Sin is whatever. You can believe that all gays are going to go to turbo-hell, you can tell all your facebook friends, you can say you feel pity for us, I don’t care. As long as I’m allowed to live my life however I want, and you don’t come into my face and tell me not to, we’re good. But your right to swing your arms stops at my face. As soon as you start codifying your opinions into law, or advocating for violence against people who
hold different beliefs than youlive their lives in a way contrary to your religion (which strangely only seems to come from people who self-identify as being on the right), we’re gonna have a problem.This is (mostly) a different point and I’m not going to engage with it. Suffice it to say that hate speech isn’t a slippery slope it’s the bottom of the mountain. If such a policy is ever enacted it will be abused and used to persecute people.
I agree that censorship is evil. I disagree that people being banned from internet forums because of opinions they hold is censorship.
You’re just redefining terms. It’s the same thing. If Twitter or Lemmy wants to block those things that’s fine. I would agree that social networks should try to maintain some sense of decency on their platforms. The government shouldn’t be involved though.
Sounds like we agree then.
🙂