Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: Is hate speech free speech and Should we kill it?

  1. Top | #21
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,857
    Rep Power
    12
    The black Louie Farrakhan and Nation Of Islam seems to fly under the radar.

    He is well known for bigotry and hate speech. He has advocated a separate homeland in the USA for blacks and has opposed inter racial marriage. His anti Jew views are well known and public. Anti white rhetoric.

    Should he and NOI be banned from social media? Will we see the day when hate speech from any race is treated equally in the media? Or is it just white extremists?

    You want extremism?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...icial_platform


    Nation of Islam members at Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park, London, March 1999.
    Wallace Fard Muhammad taught that the original peoples of the world were black and that white people were a race of "devils" created by a scientist named Yakub (the Biblical and Qur'anic Jacob) on the Greek island of Patmos. According to the supreme wisdom lessons, Fard taught that whites were devils because of a culture of lies and murder that Yakub instituted on the island to ensure the creation of his new people. Fard taught that Yakub established a secret eugenics policy among the ruling class on the island. They were to kill all dark babies at birth and lie to the parents about the child's fate. Further, they were to ensure that lighter-skinned children thrived in society. This policy encouraged a general preference for light skin. It was necessary to allow the process of grafting or making of a lighter-skinned race of people who would be different. The idea was that if the light-skinned people were allowed to mate freely with the dark-skinned people, the population would remain dark-skinned due to the genetic dominance of the original dark-skinned people. This process took approximately 600 years to produce a blond-haired, blue-eyed group of people. As they migrated into the mainland, they were greeted and welcomed by the indigenous people wherever they went. But according to the supreme wisdom lessons, they started making trouble among the righteous people, telling lies and causing confusion and mischief. This is when the ruling class of the Middle East decided to round up all the troublemakers they could find and march them out, over the hot desert sands, into the caves and hillsides of Europe. Elijah claimed that this history is well-known and preserved, and is ritualized or re-enacted within many fraternal organizations and secret societies. Fard taught that much of the savage ways of white people came from living in the caves and hillsides of Europe for over 2,000 years without divine revelation or knowledge of civilization.[48] The writings of Elijah Muhammad advise a student must learn that the white man is "Yacub's grafted Devil" and "the Skunk of the planet Earth".[

  2. Top | #22
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,224
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    40,724
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by just_me View Post

    We are not talking just about government. We are talking about ideals that don't set right with the private entities who control the flow of information and rhetoric.
    So, a Klansman has infinite free speech, but on the comment page of my blog, _I_ do not have any freedom of speech, of association. I can SAY i don't want his manifesto on my Action Figure Theatre website, but if he submits it, you would have me leave it rather than delete it, Because his freedom exceeds mine.
    There may be no meaning to this world, but that does not mean that what I do is meaningless.
    -Mark Lawrence

  3. Top | #23
    I am here! just_me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    297
    Rep Power
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by just_me View Post

    We are not talking just about government. We are talking about ideals that don't set right with the private entities who control the flow of information and rhetoric.
    So, a Klansman has infinite free speech, but on the comment page of my blog, _I_ do not have any freedom of speech, of association. I can SAY i don't want his manifesto on my Action Figure Theatre website, but if he submits it, you would have me leave it rather than delete it, Because his freedom exceeds mine.
    What you own as a private citizen is your property. You can define what you want, but if someone posts something you don't agree with and you just delete it instead of debate it, what will the reader get from that?

    Would you have the same freedoms on a board, such as this. Yes you would and If someone posted some stuff you don't agree with here, you have the right to oppose it just as you are countering my points.
    HE WHOEVER FIGHTS MONSTERS SHOULD SEE TO IT THAT IN THE PROCESS HE DOES NOT BECOME A MONSTER. AND IF YOU GAZE LONG ENOUGH INTO THE ABYSS, THE ABYSS GAZES INTO YOU.

    Friedrich Nietzsche

  4. Top | #24
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,857
    Rep Power
    12
    If you provide a site that you own you set the terms of use. You can also set an agenda. Atheist opposition to religion, or promoting religion. Or both like this site.

    Freedom of speech in the 1st Amendment means freedom to express views in public without fear of suppression. It does not mean freedom to say anything anywhere any time. If I walk into a church service and star promoting Satan I will be thrown out.

    Same if a theist goes to an atheist meeting and starts preaching.

    If I owned a business I would prohibit campaigning for a candidate on company property and time, for any party or candidate. Even for one I supported. I would not allow hate speech of any kind.

  5. Top | #25
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,736
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,486
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by just_me View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post

    I can think of a handful of people who were held to account for racist, homophobic or misogynistic things they said in the past, and I think that's fair. But these cases were more than "a mere thoughtless statement".
    There is nothing fair about judging actions of the past by today's standards and how dose anyone other than they in which manner they were given. Many atrocities have happened in the past because they were considered the norm. People have the right to make mistakes in their past, just as long as they learn in the intervening years that they were mistakes and make amends for them. This "Gottcha politics don't allow for redemption and those people who have regretted their actions most likely will punishing themselves internally more than any others.
    I agree that people ought to given the opportunity to correct their mistakes, but when they fail to do so, their past ought to be fair game.

    I can cite examples from Australian politics (such as Michael McCormack on homosexuality) where politicians have said awful things in the past that are still reflected in their voting position today; the difference today is that they are more skilled at lying about their motivations.

    Quote Originally Posted by just_me View Post
    I am using liberal to refer to liberalism. "Liberal" has a different meaning in North America that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
    I can only respond to what I take as liberalism and only to that which was I grew up in. This wacka-a-mole mentality is nothing more than people today gloating over the fact that people's mindsets of the past aren't the same as those of today and the only reason we have the mindsets we do today is because we've benefitted by 20-30 years of social growth and understanding.
    Sure, but many people haven't grown much at all in 20 years, and they are the ones in power. If people choose to hold on to outdated worldview, they have a moral obligation to vacate all positions of power and make way for those who have actually developed.

    When a politician votes against marriage equality, it's entirely fair to cite the homophobic column he wrote 25 years ago to remind everyone what really motivates him and maybe reconsider who their elected representative ought to be.

  6. Top | #26
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,736
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,486
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by just_me View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by just_me View Post

    You drive anything underground and you won't know where it will pop up or have aggressively it will shape itself. Some say terrorism comes from being marginalized.
    In Australia, we've been giving white supremacists a platform on TV and radio--both government and commercial--and this contributed to the recent terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, which was perpetrated by an Australian.

    So I find it hard to believe that denying Nazis a platform will lead to even more violence.

    I cannot believe this idea that extremism gets stronger if we bury it. We have ample evidence that extremism thrives when we give its proponents a platform, so we should stop doing that.
    I try not to use the term extremism. That's a political dog whistle that has lost it's potency due to over use. Political parties have used that to characterize the opposition in every way.
    What term do you use in its place?

    Quote Originally Posted by just_me View Post
    Hate speech is the product of deeply disturbed minds. It is those who are under the influence of such speech that you need to reach. I'm not talking just the public but the most important people of all are the children that is growing up under parents with this affliction of the mind. If we ever have the chance to change the world we need to change the minds of the children who will otherwise grow up thinking what their parents teach them.

    This can't be done by censorship. It has to be done by dialog.
    Mass media has failed to facilitate this dialogue. Instead, they broadcast propaganda uncritically. Several channels have talk shows where they invite people with opposing political views to talk at each other, but the format of these programs doesn't actually foster any dialogue whatsoever.

    I think you're pursuing the right idea, but our society doesn't have a mechanism to make it happen.

  7. Top | #27
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    8,772
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,678
    Rep Power
    70
    Neither a ban or a platform. Address the issue with public debate whenever the need comes up.

  8. Top | #28
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,857
    Rep Power
    12
    What about cell phones?

    Before the Internet there were news letters published by non mainstream groups. Books published. People handed out pamphlets and put up posters.

    From a show on racism racist vinyl records were once an industry.

    The Internet has wider coverage at low cost, it makes it easier but it would still go on despite media censorship.

  9. Top | #29
    I am here! just_me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    297
    Rep Power
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post

    I agree that people ought to given the opportunity to correct their mistakes, but when they fail to do so, their past ought to be fair game.

    I can cite examples from Australian politics (such as Michael McCormack on homosexuality) where politicians have said awful things in the past that are still reflected in their voting position today; the difference today is that they are more skilled at lying about their motivations.

    Quote Originally Posted by just_me View Post
    I am using liberal to refer to liberalism. "Liberal" has a different meaning in North America that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
    I can only respond to what I take as liberalism and only to that which was I grew up in. This wacka-a-mole mentality is nothing more than people today gloating over the fact that people's mindsets of the past aren't the same as those of today and the only reason we have the mindsets we do today is because we've benefitted by 20-30 years of social growth and understanding.
    Sure, but many people haven't grown much at all in 20 years, and they are the ones in power. If people choose to hold on to outdated worldview, they have a moral obligation to vacate all positions of power and make way for those who have actually developed.

    When a politician votes against marriage equality, it's entirely fair to cite the homophobic column he wrote 25 years ago to remind everyone what really motivates him and maybe reconsider who their elected representative ought to be.
    If a person continues to display such attitudes and ideals then, to them what they said in the past was not a mistake and since that was the case then they have the same mindset today. They have become the mistake and that mistake should be rectified as efficiently as possible.

    The most effective means of doing that is to take him down and exposing his ugliness for everyone to see. That means public humiliation so bad that no one would dare make the same argument. Throwing them out of office will leave their reputation intact. Destroying that person in an open forum will dismantle his legacy and leave nothing to be picked up by others.

    The reason the media won't do a thing is that there's no money in it for them. They would rather toss around pieces of red meat that will keep their readers coming back to read how evil other people are so they can justify their own selves.
    HE WHOEVER FIGHTS MONSTERS SHOULD SEE TO IT THAT IN THE PROCESS HE DOES NOT BECOME A MONSTER. AND IF YOU GAZE LONG ENOUGH INTO THE ABYSS, THE ABYSS GAZES INTO YOU.

    Friedrich Nietzsche

  10. Top | #30
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,736
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,486
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by just_me View Post
    If a person continues to display such attitudes and ideals then, to them what they said in the past was not a mistake and since that was the case then they have the same mindset today. They have become the mistake and that mistake should be rectified as efficiently as possible.

    The most effective means of doing that is to take him down and exposing his ugliness for everyone to see. That means public humiliation so bad that no one would dare make the same argument. Throwing them out of office will leave their reputation intact. Destroying that person in an open forum will dismantle his legacy and leave nothing to be picked up by others.

    The reason the media won't do a thing is that there's no money in it for them. They would rather toss around pieces of red meat that will keep their readers coming back to read how evil other people are so they can justify their own selves.
    I think we're more-or-less on the same page on this.

    This is what free speech looks like in a liberal society: privately-owned media companies are free to choose what they publish, and they always choose to publish what is profitable. The media is totally uninterested in fostering an open forum.

    Rules against hate speech aren't the problem.

Similar Threads

  1. Where does Free Speech End?
    By Don2 (Don1 Revised) in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: 10-26-2017, 11:26 PM
  2. musings about hate speech, hate crimes and free speech
    By repoman in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-27-2017, 07:34 PM
  3. Je Suis Muslim: Muslims use free speech to protest free speech
    By Metaphor in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-25-2015, 01:21 AM
  4. Hate Speech laws in the UK and anonymous image boards
    By repoman in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-02-2015, 05:49 AM
  5. The case for hate speech
    By Axulus in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-11-2014, 10:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •