0
34

[–] CowWithBeef 0 points 34 points (+34|-0) ago 

To counter the hate speech nonsense ask if they also oppose love speech. Then talk about how much you love white people and love their accomplishments, art, inventions, etc. Their brains might then for a moment tell them they oppose speech.

0
11

[–] glassuser 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

They won't get it.

0
5

[–] 11334954? 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Pretty solid actually. I approve

0
2

[–] porkings 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

They'll call it hate speech, much like "it's ok to be white."

1
-1

[–] 11354754? 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

okay*

0
1

[–] YoHomie 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

If they hate "hate" speech, wouldn't that be hate speech?

0
1

[–] CowWithBeef 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Yes the point of the exercise is to grab their perception and move it around the issue against their will so they can see the absurdity of what they advocate.

You're Morpheus on Neo's first day.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
9

[–] SonOfSnowden 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” - Justice Alito

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society. - Justice Kennedy

At least our Supreme Court got this one right. The U.K., Canada and now Australia got conned into this hate-speech bullshit and now it's being weaponized politically. In the U.K. they just sentenced a man to 5 months in prison for "trolling on Social Media". I can't even imagine how fucked they are now that they can be jailed for offending someone. (only if you're white of course)

0
3

[–] weezkitty 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

But rape is okay as long as it's by the rapefugees

0
1

[–] 22jam22 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

We need to start using antisemitic speech as examples just so it can get into the main stream saying jew is ok.. We need to start its ok to be Jewish as a dog whistle as well.

0
0

[–] undemocratic 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

leftists actually believe there's a difference between hate speech and free speech

these people are beyond help

0
7

[–] Cirzatkog5 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

I just had a shocking thought, that the laws against hate speech normally do not specify if the said "hate speech" must be false or not.

Which means, that, from the legal point of view, there may be no difference if the accused was telling hateful nonsense or truthfully stating facts - it still may be classified as hate speech, even if true, because of the effect it had, not because of its content.

Terrible. We have come to the point where simply stating the truth may land you in prison.

0
3

[–] 0110001111 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Usuallly hate speech laws are based on the feelings and offended status of the other party. So if you say, for example, that black people on average prefer watermelon over white people, that is hate speech. Not because it is true, but because black people get offended at everything for the most part. The same goes for women, minorities, hispanics, trans, and jews. Because their line of offense is so low, it becomes very easy to slap someone with a "hate speech" crime. However, none of this would be possible if we didn't coddle victimization so much, and create a virtual currency out of it

0
0

[–] Cirzatkog5 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

virtual currency

Bitcoin sucks in comparison

0
5

[–] beece 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

The level of hate speech on Voat shocks the hell out of me and pisses me off on occasion. I still prefer it to much of the subtle and not so subtle censorship bullshit elsewhere. CoughReddit**CoughTwitter

0
2

[–] peacegnome 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It is just because you are (((conditioned))) to be hyper-sensitive to certain thoughts. You aren't triggered (positively or negatively) by "we need more free-and-reduced-lunch kids at this school", but you are by "we need fewer trouble-makers at this school".

It is from years of programming. People are programmed to break up thoughts, and find violations to the set of rules they are given, and then to be turned off by those thoughts. It is completely normal (congrats, you are human), and hopefully we can help de-program you.

0
0

[–] BlockMe 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Really? You must be a really nice guy.

I find some of the repeated jokes a little annoying but everything bounces off me. Except @henrycorp. I find that big fat bald baby mere presence on this platform to be offensive.

0
0

[–] jhaluska 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

They'll claim to be preach tolerance, but Voaters actually have to be tolerate.

0
0

[–] QueenCuntaria 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Cough Fakebook

0
2

[–] Deplorablepoetry 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Hate is a word misused by many these days. Modern tender-flakes tend to use it as a weapon against reason, “disagree with me means you hate me” says the green haired social justice jihadist showing their true colours of ignorance, prejudice and ridiculous self righteous rhetoric.

Real hate is a real strong emotion, pretend hatefulness can and will lead to the real thing. They should be careful of what they speak against or they just might get it.

0
2

[–] SmugAnimeCatgirl 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

There is no such thing as hate speech.

0
1

[–] 11334963? 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Only free speech and censored speech

0
2

[–] Pawn 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Depends on how you voice them and where you voice them. Free speech only applies between you and the government. Other people, if you are on their platforms(twitter) are allowed to censor you as they please.

I figure as long as the speech is just speech it should be explicitly allowed. It allows room for ideas to get shouted down, debated, and real growth to happen.

0
0

[–] FattyWhale 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Depends on how you voice them and where you voice them. Free speech only applies between you and the government. Other people, if you are on their platforms(twitter) are allowed to censor you as they please.

Correct, and the people who hate free speech are increasingly acknowledging this, and are attempting to shut down speech by proxy. Thus, rather than get people arrested for speech, they try to make it impractical for people to freely express themselves, by going after "problematic" businesses and employees. For example, want to say bad things about minorities? You're legally allowed to, but you won't be able to feed your family, and you'll be cut out from most media platforms, most notably ones that are borderline monopolies, where some people make their livings.

In short, they'll stifle free speech, while still maintaining "free speech" in the legal sense, and that's where I become concerned.

0
0

[–] fusir 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

But if we instituted freedom of speech as a foundational law it clearly is one of our values. We should ask why it's important, see that it's important, and recognize the private industries that damage it are making decisions that go against our values. That's theirs to do but we shouldn't give them business or relevence.

0
1

[–] 00100100-10 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Hate speech is free speech.

load more comments ▼ (5 remaining)