Chronic Lag I think you are right. And I think this would be considered a semantic thing, but I feel the category is more about addressing crimes against people that society on the whole kind of sanctions violence against by treating as less than or having negative attitudes toward. I’m not trying to come from the point of view of an sjw, I just get how it would be considered important to prosecute crimes committed against someone from a group that is more vulnerable differently to deter people from thinking they’re more likely to get away with it. Idk whether I agree with hate crime prosecution, but I understand why the category exists.
I don't like the concept of a hate crime. For one it's tough to prove empirically. But mainly I don't believe that a crime is more reprehensible if motivated by "hate". A crime is a crime
57goku I don't agree with the concept as well but it does make sense with your explenation. The thing that I do not agree is with the process of handling hate crimes as if they were extraordinary and worth of more importance and sometimes even more justice than crimes that are literally equal or worse in substance. That process is the reason the term became a buzzword.
What ??? teach coping skills, not victim recognition? Who knew this is a better path than trying to get everyone around you to never say or do anything that you feel offended by?
Starting at 20:30 she goes into identity politics. Identity politics is bogus. I hope the people start recognizing how wrong it is. Evaluate based on the merits of the idea against principles.
The hysteria has grown outta control. Since when is it "hateful, racist or violent" to simply ......SPEAK! If people act upon your suggestion & attempt to physical hurt others, that's one thing. Yet, simply speaking our mind is quite another & this right will NEVER be taken from me w/o a fight!
To me it just sounds like semantically splitting hairs, hovering over a debate that needn't be discussed because it's just that obvious why free-speech is neccessary and defining hate is as elusive as describing the color of a mirror. Sure I get it, people hate-the-hate, but if it isn't self evident enough, there is no end to such a subjective word "hate" being flung around as if it were a tangible object. It just inculcates and reinforces the righteousness of those who feel incumbent to eradicate it, whatever it might be. This figment of hate is simply distraction that never lets us get to a treating a bigger problem of hysterical "speech".
I like this woman's message, but it's all too late and too little I fear. It's popular now for people holding liberal views to get frustrated when asked about their position, saying stuff like "I don't have time to teach a white person about (racial inequality, sexism, etc)." The internet is a crutch used by modern activists who don't see it necessary to actually tell people what their platform is and why it's important. With this crutch, activists are free to fill their demonstrations with nothing but accusations and anger, and not the understanding required to actually persuade people to their side.
We are not the consumers of facebook... we are the consum-ee's... I don't think most people understand, to be a consumer from the perspective of a company you are spending your money to "consume" their product... the general facebook userbase does not do that, therefore the general facebook userbase is not a "consumer" of facebook, even though they maybe consume content on facebook on a regular basis. Facebook's "consumers" are therefor the ad companies that buy ad-space, and who views the ads? The facebook userbase... therefor facebook's consumers and users are two different groups of people that want two different things out of the service.
Its an important distinction to make though, in understanding the motivations of a company like facebook. They are not motivated by the people that "consume" (for lack of a better word) their digital content, but rather by investors and advertising agencies who wish to spend money on the platform.
Calls for censorship is hate speech. *CIVILIZATION HAS NECROTIZING CENSORITIS:* *_"That community is already in the process of dissolution where...faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose."_* Speech to the Board of Regents, University of the State of New York (24 October 1952) Judge Billings Learned Hand
because you have the liberty to speak yourself. you do not have the liberty to silence others (or interfere to such an extent that another cannot exercise their right to speak). distressing how this is a difficult concept for people to grasp.
no. that is currently ILLEGAL. there ARE restrictions on free speech - yelling fire in a crowded movie theater or bomb on a plane, lying under oath, incitation of violence. the law already has these bounds. what it does NOT have ANY remedy for is "HATE SPEECH" whether towards young people or old in a public space. think about it - would there need to be laws or principles in place that protect POPULAR SPEECH? popular speech does not need to be protected. unpopular speech does. and considering that people lack integrity and are inclined to call almost anything they disagree with as hate speech, or "racial propaganda" or whatever category to silence them, this protection is absolute with the exceptions already noted in the law. under the category of "racial propaganda", if we were going to be consistent, you could get some Black Lives Matter folk silenced for what comes across as anti-white propaganda. or pro palestine folk silenced as anti-semitic. or pro-choice folk silenced as anti-life. fact is, there is NO SHORTAGE OF HATE IN THIS WORLD. most people we disagree with we HATE and will make any excuse to silence their positions whether they are truly hateful or not. the concept of free speech exists so that in such a world, we are not allowed to silence those we disagree with when we come into power such that it's not done to us when our enemies are in power - so that DIALOG is made possible. if you have no ability to address your enemies with words, it will ineluctably devolve to vioence. if we don't defend the concept of free speech for everyone, we are literally stripping it from everyone.
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.. is not true. When you are told on a daily basis that you are nobody, and you know the vast majority of people think this way, you lose confidence in yourself, and you start behaving in a way that conforms to this expectation. You cannot fight millions of people alone, and you fight millions of people without ruining your own life, and you cannot do it if you have no power at all. Unless you have experienced this, you cannot understand what's it like to be looked down upon by so many people, and the feeling of hopelessness that inevitably swoops your mind. it's easy to say how its just words and all that when you are not the one experiencing it, the feeling is absolutely overwhelming and overpowering. You cannot fight this alone, and i agree that the solution is not to censor the speech, but to support the victim by disproving the attacker. It's a numbers game. If enough people stand up against the abusers with good evidence and arguments, that will encourage the victims to do the same.
Your convictions must be extremely weak if you feel the need to forcefully silence any opposition. Are you so weak-minded that you can't defend your position against a stupid hate-monger?
I am against the physical acts of bigotry, murder, rape, dishonesty, greed brutality discrimination based on that. I believe in counteracting bigot speech with tolerance speech. Using peaceful means to manipulate bigots to stop taking action, peaceful protesting, and change their ways. It could land you in prison because bigots get the message. This is good cause it means you are affecting them. You can use prison as protesting too, but that is if things get that bad that they are finally paranoid about being protested for their murder.
There's nothing wrong with caring about yourself more than anyone else. There's nothing wrong with caring about your family more than any other family. And there's nothing wrong with caring about your race more than any other race. Loving myself does not mean I hate you. Loving my family does not mean I hate yours. And loving my race does not mean I hate yours.
Savage Savant to be honest I think people should just say all lives matter due to all lives being worth the same regardless of race gender or any other reason people like to categorize us as
I find her sexually attractive in this sense , I want her to be my kids greatgrandmother\grandmother\mother\me\matron of me that both my parents\ grandparents\greatgrandparents would appreciate even if some of us disagree with. We're libertarian duh. Free speech is the start. Peace be with you my Brother.
The idea of a "hate crime" is ridiculous. Crime is crime and is rarely done out of "love".
Chronic Lag I think you are right. And I think this would be considered a semantic thing, but I feel the category is more about addressing crimes against people that society on the whole kind of sanctions violence against by treating as less than or having negative attitudes toward.
I’m not trying to come from the point of view of an sjw, I just get how it would be considered important to prosecute crimes committed against someone from a group that is more vulnerable differently to deter people from thinking they’re more likely to get away with it.
Idk whether I agree with hate crime prosecution, but I understand why the category exists.
Chronic Lag hate speech laws though, are definitely something I am not on board with haha
I don't like the concept of a hate crime. For one it's tough to prove empirically. But mainly I don't believe that a crime is more reprehensible if motivated by "hate". A crime is a crime
This is just a way to criminalize speech, nothing more. toughtpolice all the way baby!!
57goku I don't agree with the concept as well but it does make sense with your explenation. The thing that I do not agree is with the process of handling hate crimes as if they were extraordinary and worth of more importance and sometimes even more justice than crimes that are literally equal or worse in substance. That process is the reason the term became a buzzword.
What ??? teach coping skills, not victim recognition? Who knew this is a better path than trying to get everyone around you to never say or do anything that you feel offended by?
I'd love to hear the "Left" sound like this again.
What were you saying again?
Starting at 20:30 she goes into identity politics. Identity politics is bogus. I hope the people start recognizing how wrong it is. Evaluate based on the merits of the idea against principles.
Free speech is not confusing you just say what you want
Nadine Strossen likes the First Amendment but hates the Second Amendment.
She doesn't seem to realize the second is absolutely necessary to protect the first
The hysteria has grown outta control. Since when is it "hateful, racist or violent" to simply ......SPEAK!
If people act upon your suggestion & attempt to physical hurt others, that's one thing.
Yet, simply speaking our mind is quite another & this right will NEVER be taken from me w/o a fight!
The Blazing Saddles model is the way to go. Satirize and ridicule hate speech and racism instead of banning it.
To me it just sounds like semantically splitting hairs, hovering over a debate that needn't be discussed because it's just that obvious why free-speech is neccessary and defining hate is as elusive as describing the color of a mirror. Sure I get it, people hate-the-hate, but if it isn't self evident enough, there is no end to such a subjective word "hate" being flung around as if it were a tangible object. It just inculcates and reinforces the righteousness of those who feel incumbent to eradicate it, whatever it might be. This figment of hate is simply distraction that never lets us get to a treating a bigger problem of hysterical "speech".
I like this woman's message, but it's all too late and too little I fear. It's popular now for people holding liberal views to get frustrated when asked about their position, saying stuff like "I don't have time to teach a white person about (racial inequality, sexism, etc)." The internet is a crutch used by modern activists who don't see it necessary to actually tell people what their platform is and why it's important. With this crutch, activists are free to fill their demonstrations with nothing but accusations and anger, and not the understanding required to actually persuade people to their side.
We are not the consumers of facebook... we are the consum-ee's... I don't think most people understand, to be a consumer from the perspective of a company you are spending your money to "consume" their product... the general facebook userbase does not do that, therefore the general facebook userbase is not a "consumer" of facebook, even though they maybe consume content on facebook on a regular basis. Facebook's "consumers" are therefor the ad companies that buy ad-space, and who views the ads? The facebook userbase... therefor facebook's consumers and users are two different groups of people that want two different things out of the service.
Its an important distinction to make though, in understanding the motivations of a company like facebook. They are not motivated by the people that "consume" (for lack of a better word) their digital content, but rather by investors and advertising agencies who wish to spend money on the platform.
A fresh Reason video
Calls for censorship is hate speech. *CIVILIZATION HAS NECROTIZING CENSORITIS:* *_"That community is already in the process of dissolution where...faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose."_* Speech to the Board of Regents, University of the State of New York (24 October 1952) Judge Billings Learned Hand
I agree.
because you have the liberty to speak yourself. you do not have the liberty to silence others (or interfere to such an extent that another cannot exercise their right to speak). distressing how this is a difficult concept for people to grasp.
no. that is currently ILLEGAL. there ARE restrictions on free speech - yelling fire in a crowded movie theater or bomb on a plane, lying under oath, incitation of violence. the law already has these bounds. what it does NOT have ANY remedy for is "HATE SPEECH" whether towards young people or old in a public space. think about it - would there need to be laws or principles in place that protect POPULAR SPEECH? popular speech does not need to be protected. unpopular speech does. and considering that people lack integrity and are inclined to call almost anything they disagree with as hate speech, or "racial propaganda" or whatever category to silence them, this protection is absolute with the exceptions already noted in the law. under the category of "racial propaganda", if we were going to be consistent, you could get some Black Lives Matter folk silenced for what comes across as anti-white propaganda. or pro palestine folk silenced as anti-semitic. or pro-choice folk silenced as anti-life.
fact is, there is NO SHORTAGE OF HATE IN THIS WORLD. most people we disagree with we HATE and will make any excuse to silence their positions whether they are truly hateful or not.
the concept of free speech exists so that in such a world, we are not allowed to silence those we disagree with when we come into power such that it's not done to us when our enemies are in power - so that DIALOG is made possible. if you have no ability to address your enemies with words, it will ineluctably devolve to vioence.
if we don't defend the concept of free speech for everyone, we are literally stripping it from everyone.
@@jinchoungfire in a crowded theater was overturned decades ago, silly
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.. is not true. When you are told on a daily basis that you are nobody, and you know the vast majority of people think this way, you lose confidence in yourself, and you start behaving in a way that conforms to this expectation. You cannot fight millions of people alone, and you fight millions of people without ruining your own life, and you cannot do it if you have no power at all. Unless you have experienced this, you cannot understand what's it like to be looked down upon by so many people, and the feeling of hopelessness that inevitably swoops your mind. it's easy to say how its just words and all that when you are not the one experiencing it, the feeling is absolutely overwhelming and overpowering. You cannot fight this alone, and i agree that the solution is not to censor the speech, but to support the victim by disproving the attacker. It's a numbers game. If enough people stand up against the abusers with good evidence and arguments, that will encourage the victims to do the same.
Your convictions must be extremely weak if you feel the need to forcefully silence any opposition. Are you so weak-minded that you can't defend your position against a stupid hate-monger?
I am against the physical acts of bigotry, murder, rape, dishonesty, greed brutality discrimination based on that. I believe in counteracting bigot speech with tolerance speech. Using peaceful means to manipulate bigots to stop taking action, peaceful protesting, and change their ways. It could land you in prison because bigots get the message. This is good cause it means you are affecting them. You can use prison as protesting too, but that is if things get that bad that they are finally paranoid about being protested for their murder.
This woman is clearly brilliant. Thanks for posting the video.
Perfect timing for this video with the Munk debate of political correctness being tonight. Good thing they got Jordan Peterson for that.
where can I see it?
There’s nothing wrong with loving your own people.
Well, it's absurd. So there's that. Shouldn't be illegal under law, but definitely discouraged by society. Like religion, I guess.
Sourav Majumdar no, there actually is something wrong with that. But loving ones people and ones nation is the most gracious things one can do.
There's nothing wrong with caring about yourself more than anyone else. There's nothing wrong with caring about your family more than any other family. And there's nothing wrong with caring about your race more than any other race. Loving myself does not mean I hate you. Loving my family does not mean I hate yours. And loving my race does not mean I hate yours.
It's a bad idea, because it necessarily relies on a collectivist mindset, no?
Bobby Smith preach brother preach.
Great video
I appreciate how she made leatherman listen without SJW shit.
How do you guys feel about rusty blumpkins?
"Identity Politics" gave rise to its counter point: White Identity. What did people think was going to happen ??
I honestly love how she said harassment
Hooray for life after hate!
Is it bad that the first two seconds made me laugh? It was just so out of left field!
Hysteria is one of most powerful natural mechanisms of social change.
He references a british law made in 1968 to combat a neo-nazi group. Does anyone know the name of the law?
I can't figure out which of her eyes is the working one
People chanting white lives matter aren't "hate-mongers"!
Savage Savant to be honest I think people should just say all lives matter due to all lives being worth the same regardless of race gender or any other reason people like to categorize us as
All lives matter and all lives have to be responsible for there self or you look like shit and are dealt with....
i noticed one peculiar thing: i do not understand the liberal speech. the words do not connect into an idea.
Great women
Something that everyone understood & no one questioned before women were given the right to vote was .......
There's no such thing as, "HATE SPEECH"!
I find her sexually attractive in this sense , I want her to be my kids greatgrandmother\grandmother\mother\me\matron of me that both my parents\ grandparents\greatgrandparents would appreciate even if some of us disagree with. We're libertarian duh. Free speech is the start.
Peace be with you my Brother.