Both hate and speech have accepted meanings in English. To claim they don't, and that hate speech is therefore an invalid topic, is a fallacy.
"no recognised or accepted meaning"
I think that would be 'nor'. Too bad @grammarnazi only corrects spelling, and not grammar (irony).
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You are mistaken.
Just because two different words have accepted meanings of their own, does not necessarily mean that when they're put together that the combination has an accepted or recognised meaning.
There are any number of examples of this like "Cow Banana", need I go on?
Also, while you're at it, can you give us a clear example of so called Hate Speech?
No I Didn't Think So!
Cow banana? As you say, putting two words together 'does not necessarily mean when put together the combination has an accepted meaning'.
In the case of cow banana, it has no widely accepted meaning.
Hate speech does.
"need I go on?"
If you still think you have a valid point, yes, because you've yet to make it.
"In the case of cow banana, it has no widely accepted meaning.
Hate speech does."
Oh does it now? Please cite an example of this Hate Speech.
You can't ..Can you????
I'm Listening.................................
The "if you don't respond, and in the exact way I want you to, then I win the debate even if you've disproved my premise and logic" argument.
Well, as you so wisely predicted, I refuse to play along, because I have my own wise prediction, which is you wouldn't accept any answer given.
Your original comment has been disproved. Hate speech has a well accepted meaning in society. Even if you could somehow prove it didn't, where were you hoping to go next with that?
PS: Look up "disjunctive syllogisms".
I'm sorry but no amount of innuendo and hyperbole will make up for your inability to give a straight answer to a simple question.
"Well, as you so wisely predicted, I refuse to play along".
That's not what I predicted. I predicted that you couldn't answer the question and it looks like I was right.
Your pretending to be 'refusing to play along' looks like a rather pathetic and disingenuous excuse for not being able to answer.
You say "Your original comment has been disproved".
When, where and how was it disproved? Somehow I didn't notice.
Was it when you said "Hate speech has a well accepted meaning in society."?
If the fact that you said that, supposedly disproves my original comment then you better have some hard evidence to back up that assertion.
"because I have my own wise prediction, which is you wouldn't accept any answer given."
I'm not so sure how wise that prediction is. In fact by making it, you appear to be casting aspersions about my character. Such egregious behaviour is unacceptable in any mature discussion and is likely to destroy whatever credibility you might have had.
Now, If you don't answer the question we can only conclude that you CAN'T answer it, which will prove exactly what I said in the first place.
BTW. I looked up "disjunctive syllogisms" which is nothing more than a fancy way of describing the act of deceptively implying that the choice of options or answers are limited to those of a given set, when this may or may no be the case.
However I don't see that it has any relevance to this discussion.
Honestly can't bother to read that. You're not paying me enough to help you improve your debate skills.
Learn some basic reasoning - it will serve you well. Your original point is discredited no matter how many false ultimatums you issue. Your premise is false, your logic is sketchy, and your outcome is invalid.
Oh and unless you reply the way I want, which is to say "I concede", then I win. (By your own reasoning, that works!)
Now please, declare yourself the winner, and tell me you're done with this conversation, so I can have one more smile on your behalf.
I'm not here to win or loose anything but simply to express my opinion on certain issues which I have done.
I'll be glad to leave it to the readers to decide for themselves what they think.
Just my 1 cent, we live in a digital age which evolves faster then our language can. If it’s in wiki it has a meaning to any younger generation, not to say I am disagreeing with your over all point of it being used to censor.
I see it as “ohh you hurt my feeling, cause I only have one I’m calling hate speech”.
Posted using Partiko iOS
If that’s the accepted definition of hate speech, then social media platforms have been harassing and deplatforming people for no reason.
Honestly, the real definition of hate speech is “wrong think”
I say the definition is more “differing views” then “wrong think” but your right on your point and thought path!
Posted using Partiko iOS
I wouldn't say it's for no reason. The reason is they want to silence their opposition i.e. anyone who tells the truth about them and their plans to dominate the World.
The excuse they use is Hate Speech which as you say is really"wrong think", which is such an ambiguous concept that no one can prove or disprove it.
Notice that they can't point to any particular instance of hate speech on any of the sites they harass or de-platform.
How about " Criminals should be imprisoned "
Here my speech is attacking a group on the basis of attributes.
Is this Hate Speech?
Oh and maybe you could tell me who wrote that entry in Wiki and why would you believe them?
Ohh I never stated I believe the wiki entry, rather it’s the source that will be used by the masses.
So IMO your statement there would be disqualified by it being an attribute that coincides with the action of the statement, such as to be a criminal you must first have broken a law and been convicted therefore you should be imprisoned based on the law and conviction classifying you as a criminal. Now state “criminals should be killed” then here in Canada where there is no death penalty or tolerance for threats the masses would consider that hate speech. Myself I figure people need tougher skin, if we don’t let the “bad” views be expressed how can we educate ourselves against them.
Posted using Partiko iOS
"your statement there would be disqualified by it being an attribute that coincides with the action of the statement"
"Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes"
source wiki
Wiki doesn't qualify the word "attributes". Therefore in plain English it means any and all attributes.
So essentially it means speech that attacks anyone since everyone has attributes.
So what does it mean by "attacks"?
"Now state “criminals should be killed” .
So if you said "I think we should introduce or re-introduce the death penalty for certain types of criminals"
Would that be hate speech?
How about "illegal immigrants should be sent home" or
"Paedophiles should be imprisoned for life"
Or "White people should be dispossessed"?
I view “attacks” as inciting violence, so no your examples do not really fall into the catagory of hate speech at least to me. Those are all debate topics leading to possible legal or political reforms.
You are right this term of “hate speech” is to vague to actually have a conclusive discussion about but I still do think the fall back will be upon whether the speech contains unacceptable actions.
In the case of Alex Jones we see all the borders of this classification “hate speech” being pushed but on the other side of that equation those pushing the narrative are drawing a line in the sand. Eventually our understanding of what “hate speech” should be defined as will evolve and most likely cross back over that line making those pushing this false narrative look like even bigger fools!
Posted using Partiko iOS
I would generally agree with that, although "incitement to violence" is a crime in and of itself and is really a separate issue to so called Hate Speech.