[Despanan]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

Supporting the demand that those who suffer under real hate speech to not endure it. Right wing communism, eh? Here I am saying I oppose the concept of freedom of speech and here, everyone is afraid that I think it's acceptable to chop off people's heads or throw in the gulags for calling a woman or PoC a derogatory term.

Should someone be jailed or fined for using a racial slur?

Now let's take that to the macro level. Because some cats on a communist forum will not tolerate hate speech; extending that protection to the minorities shouldn't necessarily change just because they crossed some border. Hate speech is either wrong or it's okay. There's a gulf of difference between calling out a despot or what Julian Assange is doing and bullying a minority with hate speech.

The problem is that in order to use the state to protect your particular group, your group must first become privileged. If your group is privileged then hate speech against it already won't be tolerated by virtue of that privilege.

It's a Catch-22.

Only insofar that the crowd sourced values which were built in that forum are actually observed. Take note of the very key element here. Their "law" within that tiny tiny little space on the internet was developed on their terms. Hate speech isn't tolerated there. What I would wonder is why one would oppose the spread of this idea IF it actually became popular to indeed oppose hate speech.

Not tolerating hate speech is not the same thing as opposing free speech. It's not a dichotomy.

Again. Consider what this would mean if for example, OWS's values based consensus model agreed that hate speech wouldn't tolerated for even a second. What would that actually mean if it went nation wide? Or should OWS stay small or say nothing on the topic of violent speech?

OWS has a very lively dialogue on hate-speech and violence/violent speech.

When people bring it, the person is down twinkled until they leave. This is NOT censoring them, this is letting them know that their hate speech is not tolerated in the GA. If this model went national or international it would not be hostile to free speech, nor would it use the state to oppress those who engaged in it, rather it would force them to go elsewhere until they changed their ways.

...DUH. What makes you think I need a lesson from you on this?

Because you seem to be advancing the idea that there can be a dictatorship of the oppressed. That's not possible.

And yet the best that the Westboro Baptist Church gets away with nothing more but a finger wagging and some hate shaming? Yet here you are, crying out for justice and getting your head knocked around.

Exactly. Because the state, by it's very nature perceives speech that is dangerous to it to be a threat.

And where are the guns pointing at hate groups? Where's the hostility from the police to those guys?

The police will never be hostile to hate groups. It's not in their psychology as an institution. Why do you think the Guardian Angels came out to occupy events and supported the police against us under the guise of "protecting the community"?

So WHAT?

So we don't really have freedom of speech right now. Laws are only as good as the people enforcing them, and in our society the people enforcing them will always be the State and the State will never point it's guns at the Golden Dawn because the Golden Dawn is only hostile towards the oppressed.

If we had a communist revolution, it would point it's guns at the Golden Dawn, not to protect the oppressed, but to protect the new privileged.

Once again, it's a catch-22

Being threatened with **** and violence isn't something that I'd say minorities are simply "offended" about. I call you a cracker. You MIGHT be offended. There's offense and then there's outright fucking terror at the hands of oppressive speech.

The terror doesn't come from the speech, the terror comes from the violence the speech might result in. Like how Saya said that for oppression you need hate + power. You're responding to this by criminalizing the hate, while ignoring the power.

Because that's what I was saying. I was saying we should execute people who call women "bitches".

You were saying you opposed free speech. Therefore you support SOME form of State violence against those who engage in speech you disagree with. This could run the gamut from fining to gulags to execution. I think your speed is more of the "fine" capacity, but that doesn't mean it's an appropriate response.

Yes, because you go there. So you would totally know.

I read the policy. It's pretty easy to ascertain it's intent which is to send the message "Hate speech will not be tolerated here". The problem is that they communicate that message inappropriately.

You keep using that word "state" as if that's what I was talking about. What will you do when your own group determines that they wont tolerate hate speech?

My group already won't tolerate hate speech. You're imposing an unnecessary dichotomy.