I could not care less what the official definition of hate speech is
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 ?
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
I wouldn't be surprised if that poster was the work of the Left, but even if the Nazi Party did do it, as I've been saying it's just a minor partisan group doing its thing that most conservatives hate as much as you do; it's nothing like the concerted organized effort to take down Trump I'm talking about.
Gosh you guys already call anyone you disagree with a "hateful bigot." It's been thrown at me personally. That's why I'm throwing it back at the Left. When the Left desists -- and apologizes (that certainly means some here) -- then I desist. You aren't usually one of the offenders but you could call off your Leftist buddies.
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.
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
Is it because "republican" isn't a protected class?
Yes.
Why does that matter? If you're inciting violence against a group by speaking hatefully, why should I care what class of people the violence is towards?
And how does calling out the leftists' hateful speech towards Republicans diminish the harm of True Hate SpeechTM?
They're inciting violence. But calling that hate speech somehow diminishes real hate speech
Who is inciting violence? I want a name or an example of the hate speech. Surely we cannot have a situation where calling Obama a Kenyan, or calling Trump an idiot, attacking his agenda or opposing him via the courts is considered hate speech.
I agree that hate speech cannot be only applicable to a protected class, but if we are going to make accusations, I expect to hear about some speech that has not been either widely condemned or for which the speaker has not been punished.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Not really, it is a theory that is imposed on nature so consistently that you think you are observing it. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
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.
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
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.
That doesn't add up: You get a choice in your religion and yet that is a protected class.
If religion can be protected, why can't political affiliation?
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.
I don't subscribe to prejudging people based on groups that they belong to - it is wrong to affiliate people with weakness just because of their race or sexual orientation.
Republicans are not a vulnerable or less privileged group.
Put on a MAGA hat and go walk through Harlem and then come back and tell me if you felt vulnerable or not.
being rude to your political opponents/lawyers/politicians/bankers isn't.
Sure, but what about calling for violence out of hatred?
Trump has done nothing unconstitutional or illegal, that's ALL drummed up by the Left.
The "Left" did more than "drum" stuff up. People opposed to Trump 's policies presented their case in a court of law. Trump's representatives presented their case. The court decided that certain policies were, in fact, illegal or unconstitutional. And that is how we decide in the US whether something is illegal or unconstitutional: both sides present their case in a court of law and the court makes the decision. I admit it's not a perfect process, but nothing is perfect; more to the point, I can't think of a better way of resolving these kinds of disagreements.
Of course, the Trump Administration hasn't yet exhausted the appeals process, so the final determination may change.
Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg
™ Version 4.2
(1)