It has been suggested that I am showing intolerance by posting the instances of speech from another website that demonstrate - in my view, of course - category hate in the form of false and inflammatory accusations and characterizations designed to denigrate a certain category of people...as well as fantasizing about the death and killing of people in that category.
Questions:
1. What constitutes hate speech?
2. When it occurs, how long should it be tolerated before calling it out?
3. When does tolerance become enabling?
All viewpoints gratefully accepted (so long as they are civil and not obscene).
Thanks!
2 comments:
Samuel Skinner
Hate speech is like porn- you will know it when you see it.
A more helpful definition would be a defamation about a group of people that is false. When someone does it you should call them out. Tolerance becomes enabling when nobody speaks up and it becomes the default view.
Samuel Skinner said:
"A more helpful definition would be a defamation about a group of people that is false."
Thanks for your comments. I agree with this but there is a difficulty. There is a charge against Jews that goes like this: "Jews want to kill us and drink our blood". This is accompanied by a purported observer who said he saw a blood-drinking ritual.
Such a thing cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed, so it is insidious. Those disposed to believe it do so unquestioningly and fervently.
So how do you demonstrate falseness of such a hateful lie? (I know Jews, and it's a lie).
This is where the problem of hate speech gets muddy.
Any thoughts?
Post a Comment