The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right

Well, in this case they did: Gay snub Cornish B&B owners lose Supreme Court appeal - BBC NewsIn this instance, would you say the Court got it right ?

Hi Faith - you might have missed my previous post, but it includes a link to a story about a case where Christian hotel owners refused to allow a gay couple (note, not married) to stay in a room together. This is an example of the sort of thing we're talking about.Do you agree with the English Courts that they were wrong to do that ?(I'm not being confrontational with that question - I'm genuinely interested).

Ok, so it's not just marriage, but gay sex too that you feel it's okay to refuse service on the basis of.Doesn't the sex thing rather define the sexuality though ? In other words, isn't it like saying that racial discrimination is ok, if it's done on the grounds of someone's skin colour ?

On the top floor of the House at Checkpoint Charlie, in Berlin, they have a permanent exhibition, detailing the suffering of people at the hands of various totalitarian regimes.In one room, there is a collection of sketches and descriptions, depicting the experiences and memories of a survivor of a North Korean torture camp. As an example, he describes how the guards would regularly rape the prisoners, and if a woman fell pregnant as a result, they would wait until she was several months pregnant, and then beat and stamp on her stomach in front of the inmates, until she aborted the unborn child in a bloodsoaked horror movie, before being left to die in agony and the sort of misery that cannot be imagined.Anyone who describes as totalitarian, the sorts of laws in a liberal democracy, which address which toilet a transgender person can use, is diminishing in an insulting and dangerous way, the genuine suffering of people at the hands of genuine totalitarian regimes. Anyone who thinks that it is totalitarian for liberals to say that people should be required to respect the rights of minorities, is perfectly welcome as far as I'm concerned to offer to swap their suffering for the genuine suffering of someone like the survivor of that North Korean horror camp.The word "totalitarian" is rightly used as a mark of shame to describe regimes like North Korea. To use it to describe the laws and leanings of a liberal democracy weakens the fight against those regimes - and it makes you look a complete idiot.

Unless you are aware of a totalitarian state which does not practice state brutality, then your distinction is meaningless to the point I was making.Totalitarian states are synonymous with brutality, torture and atrocities. As long as they are synonymous with those things, then referring to the mild impositions of a liberal democracy as totalitarian is (a) about as "imprecise" as language gets; and (b) (my earlier point) serves to utterly and disgustingly diminish and normalise the genuine suffering of people at the hands of regimes which are genuinely totalitarian.

If you were to ask yourself how you allow yourself to malign Obama and the Democrats as you do, perhaps you'll find your answer.Politics is partisan. Leaders are privileged people, and their privilege is paid for by all of us. That entitles us to give them a rough ride.

Well, I'm at work at the moment, but this took all of 2 mins to find on the internet:Obama Effigy with the Words 'Pray 4 Assassin' Spotted in AlabamaPastor Terry Jones Burns Obama, Clinton Effigies In Response To Gay Rights Support | HuffPost Voiceshttp://www.wthr.com/...question-hanging-barack-obama-displayNo doubt others with some time can find plenty more examples of things going the other way. Trump, despite him wanting you to feel he is a unique victim, ain't.

I think it's worth setting out a useful working definition of hate speech:Hate speech - WikipediaAs with references to totalitarianism, accusing people of hate speech when they criticise an individual's behaviour or actions, serves to diminish the harm of true hate speech.It is a reasonable position to attack the nature of some of the criticisms of Trump (and Obama and many many others) as criticism which is beyond the pale, but let's reserve hate speech as the expression which is properly used to describe the language bigots use to stir up hatred against groups of people, based on their colour, gender, nationality, sexuality etc.

So by that standard, I can invent my own definitions too then, yes ? For example, I could choose to define the expression "hateful bigot" as any conservative with whom I disagree ?

I speak for myself, not for others, or the left generally. My point is that precision in the language assists the debate. For the most part, conservatives are not hateful bigots. And criticism of Trump is not hate speech - let's reserve that for the vile thing it is.

Yes.

There are two reasons that hate speech, as set out in the wiki page I cited, doesn't apply to Republicans.First, folks get a choice as to whether to be a Republican - members of protected classes of people don't.Second, protected classes are vulnerable or less privileged groups of people in society, with less power and less ability to protect themselves against prejudice and hatred, so society affords them the protection that they have less ability to create themselves. Republicans are not a vulnerable or less privileged group.I agree that hatred is not a great thing to be exposed to. Abuse (as distinct from criticism) towards Republicans is not something I applaud. It's wrong and unfair. But it is not as bad as racism/anti-gay hatred etc, because those groups have no choice as to the hatred they receive, and less power to do something about it. For that reason, the term "hate speech" should retain its proper definition. We can call what Republicans (and Democrats and lawyers and politicians and bankers etc) receive, excessive abuse or similar. Hate speech is (in my view) rightly criminalised in my country - being rude to your political opponents/lawyers/politicians/bankers isn't.

If everyone got a free choice in their religion, then there would be a widespread distribution between Muslim/Sikh/Hindu/Jewish/Christian/atheists etc amongst children of Christian families and similarly amongst the other religions. Are you claiming that's the case ? I have seen Asian people punched in the face by a passing skinhead - I have seen gay people abused without defence by bigots - I have not seen white people punched for their colour or straight people abused for their sexuality. I think people should be afforded extra protection if they are receiving extra abuse. Are you prepared to claim that, in the states, Republicans suffer as much abuse/prejudice/bigotry/violence as black people ? That's wrong - but it's not hate speech. The disinction is important.Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.

Those are criminal assaults - I have been talking about hate speech.

Way more so than amongst religious backgrounds, yes. And I note that you don't deny my rebuttal of your point. There are some examples of that - are you claiming the preponderance of racist assaults against white people is greater than against black/Asian people in our societies ? In my view, it doesn't require Republicans to suffer a zero amount of vulnerability in order to protect black people/gays etc. Because if we are to limit freedom of speech, to protect vulnerable segments of society, it is right that we limit those limitations. Hence hate speech should be a very specific definition.