* “Hate speech” is an artificial concept in the first place, meant to be applied to whites and nobody else. It’s normal to speak in a hostile way of people who are a threat to your existence. An emotion as universal as hate must have evolved for some useful purpose, after all.
* We need to fight this “hate speech” concept like we fight gun control because this is how they are going to end freedom of speech, and it will sound “common sense” and “perfectly reasonable” at the time.
* * To me, hate speech = astrology.
Whenever I see it used in a sentence I disregard the opinion of the writer because I don’t believe it’s real. At least not in a country with a First Amendment.
It bothers me, though, that we let believers in “hate speech” frame these debates in terms of it. There has to be a way to reframe this.
And I’m saying this as an Italian-American who grew up being called “Wop” and “Dago.” Did I like to hear that? No, I didn’t. But I also don’t believe in outlawing it.
There are a lot of others things I find personally offensive and/or despise that I don’t think should be outlawed. That’s what makes a free society. The anger I felt at hearing ethnic slurs was nothing compared to the rage I feel when hearing someone speak of “hate speech” because, to me, that signifies the impending end of a free society…which is much worse than annoying words.
* * “We tend to think in over-literal or clumsy ways about ‘hate speech’.”
No, you think about it as a stilleto to kill ideas with the minimum of sound.
* * So now Marshall is calling for reading into the thoughts of people in order to find motives for possible thought crimes that they may not even be consciously aware of committing. Actual words spoken are no longer enough to try and convict a person for thought crimes, motives must be read into what a person thinks and/or is about to say and obviously people such as Marshall are needed to help correctly interpret whether or not such things are in fact hate speech.
* What issue do leftists like marshall NOT use victim families to promote their lies? It certainly isn’t gun control, where emotional appeals using families of victims are literally their entire argument. Marshall has done this very thing on the issue of guns, among many others. He just hates having these tactics used against his cultural marxist side, and is not used to being put on the defensive. His specific use of “hate speech” is because he wants america to join europe in banning political speech he does not like – he is tired of having kids on the internet destroying his hysterical ranting and raving.
* The war on “hate speech” has two purposes. First and most importantly, it’s an effort to criminalize political thought one dislikes. If you can label your opponent’s speech as “hate” then you needn’t debate him on the facts and logical merits of the issue. Secondly, it keeps a large segment of the population perpetually in a childish tantrum state. Generally those whose brains have fully developed are unconcerned about “bad words” (see the late George Carlin’s many rants on this subject) and instead focus on bad behaviors. By labeling most of western civilization’s core tenets as “hate,” the leftists may excuse and justify the rampant race-based criminal violence of their African clients. Most leftists couldn’t care less about your choice of words except in how they might be used as a weapon against you and/or serve as justification for when their African clients gang rape then set fire to your 93 year old grandmother (“she said the word ‘boy’ in their presence”).
* There are Norwegian women who remember walking home alone through Oslo at 3:00 AM in perfect safety. Now? No way. But since this change cannot be quantified by Enlightened Social Scientists, it does not exist.
When I was a child, we only locked the doors to our house when we left town on vacation once a year. Decades later, as a resident of the Bronx, discussing [multiple] door locks and security systems was common party talk. How do you put a price on these massive social costs?
