[amity]

Something that got me thinking recently was on the topic of hate speech.
Of course there's been a lot of talk recently after Charlie Hebdo about what can and cannot be said or published in the media.
A recent example I noticed was a German colleague who was trying to get one of those countryballs meme pages taken down on Facebook.
It's a satirical, albeit very close to the bone and inflammatory page called 'Oberkommando' clearly styled on a Nazi officer.
I'd say it's a matter of time before it comes down, as more attention is being paid to it now.
To be honest, I'm surprised it's lasted as long as it has!

This Oberkommandoball is over the top, for sure, but the thing is, in general, these countryball memes are often very accurate and very funny in their depiction of how nations behave and attitudes towards other nations.
Perhaps a bit too close to the truth for some people.
But the cartoonish nature of it, perhaps means it sneaks in under the radar.
I, for one, think it would be a shame if we could not poke fun at other nationalities and yes also people of other cultures and races too, and I'm perfectly fine with people poking fun at people of my nationality and culture and all the stereotypes that come with it too.
A lot of the best comedians have made a lot of money off the back of lampooning other nations and their weird ways.
What are your thoughts?
How far should free speech go in regard to cartoonish balls!?
And do you have any favourite countryball memes?

Here's a few to get us started: https://www.memecenter.com/countryballs/

[Daedmo]

(01-28-2015 07:52 AM)amity Wrote:  

Something that got me thinking recently was on the topic of hate speech.
Of course there's been a lot of talk recently after Charlie Hebdo about what can and cannot be said or published in the media.
A recent example I noticed was a German colleague who was trying to get one of those countryballs meme pages taken down on Facebook.
It's a satirical, albeit very close to the bone and inflammatory page called 'Oberkommando' clearly styled on a Nazi officer.
I'd say it's a matter of time before it comes down, as more attention is being paid to it now.
To be honest, I'm surprised it's lasted as long as it has!

This Oberkommandoball is over the top, for sure, but the thing is, in general, these countryball memes are often very accurate and very funny in their depiction of how nations behave and attitudes towards other nations.
Perhaps a bit too close to the truth for some people.
But the cartoonish nature of it, perhaps means it sneaks in under the radar.
I, for one, think it would be a shame if we could not poke fun at other nationalities and yes also people of other cultures and races too, and I'm perfectly fine with people poking fun at people of my nationality and culture and all the stereotypes that come with it too.
A lot of the best comedians have made a lot of money off the back of lampooning other nations and their weird ways.
What are your thoughts?
How far should free speech go in regard to cartoonish balls!?
And do you have any favourite countryball memes?

"Hate speech" is anything the ruling leftist establishment says it is, and they're shifting the goalposts all the time. Watch out for being accused of "Hate" when you say something negative about pedophiles sometime in the not too distant future.

[lskdfjldsf]

Hate speech = anything heterosexual white men say about anything

Basically, the reason we're all using fake names, fake pictures, and posting anonymously on an internet forum about things every other group can talk about freely on the street or in the office.

[turkishcandy]

I don't think there is anything vague or stretchable about hate speech. You give me 100 examples and I will tell you which ones are hate speech. Basically, it's speech that involves violence against a group of people, like jews, blacks, gays etc. Telling gays to go fuck themselves is okay. Telling gays to die or telling people to kill gays is not. What's so complicated about that? If you don't understand hate speech and then just call it bullshit, people are going to take that bullshit, stretch its boundaries and use it against you. If you understand what hate speech is and still think it's bullshit, then I'm concerned about you.

[TigerMandingo]

Sometimes I hear people say "We're moving into an Orwellian type of society".

Moving? We're already fucking there!! Look no further than to Canada and Europe where you have these ludicrous and draconian "hate speech" laws. And you pose a good question, since these laws themselves are so vague and arbitrary that we don't even know what the powers that be consider "hate speech".

I'll tell you this much. AMerica may have its problems, but the First Amendment is one of the greatest documents in the history of Western Civilization.

[Sp5]

The only definition that matters is the legal one. In the USA, there is no such thing as hate speech in the law. You can't be prosecuted for being a Nazi or anything else in that regard.

Consult your local law books elsewhere.

[amity]

(01-28-2015 09:16 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

I don't think there is anything vague or stretchable about hate speech. You give me 100 examples and I will tell you which ones are hate speech. Basically, it's speech that involves violence against a group of people, like jews, blacks, gays etc. Telling gays to go fuck themselves is okay. Telling gays to die or telling people to kill gays is not. What's so complicated about that? If you don't understand hate speech and then just call it bullshit, people are going to take that bullshit, stretch its boundaries and use it against you. If you understand what hate speech is and still think it's bullshit, then I'm concerned about you.

Interesting. Cos the Germans and other Europeans who are trying to get that page taken down were doing so cos they deemed it an 'incitement to hatred'.
However the page in question is clearly flagged as both 'Satire' and a 'Fictional Character'. I think there is something about satirical pages that they cannot be taken as serious and so cannot be seriously regarded as an incitement to hatred.
Not to condone this guy's page but the dude did his homework.

[H1N1]

Simply:

I read a quote the other day that said something along the lines of 'The test of how free a society you live in can be measured by what you could stand up in the town square and say without getting lynched (or political/legal equivalent).'

I think it is an over-simplification, but near enough the mark to be useful. As a practical guide for those who take self-preservation seriously, it has its uses. Much of what is discussed on here could not be openly discussed in a public place, in person.

The more complicated answer:

Those who defend freedom of speech should, in theory, be willing to accept giving a platform to those who express odious, hateful beliefs, even where those beliefs might incite the impressionable to violence. The trouble with this is that it only works when freedom of speech, which is an abstract concept, is twinned with a cultural emphasis on tolerance. Tolerance in turn must be broad, and seen as virtuous, for it to be self-enforcing.

This leads to a paradox, where in order for freedom of speech to be possible in a developed society (as opposed to raw nature, where your incitement to violence might be met with a spear from the object of your intended violence), that society must be intolerant of intolerance, and perhaps even take active measures to suppress it. Ideally, this is a passive process, whereby tolerance as a virtue is promoted and taught from birth. However, where instances of intolerance arose, there would need to be mechanisms in place to provide redress for those affected. Again, there is no reason that this would need, in most cases, to be any more than the disdain of one's peers for demonstrating the character weakness that a lack of tolerance suggests.

The unfortunate reality is that we live in an upside own society, where the naturally weak, who gravitate to the politics of the left (all are equal, dolce et decorum est) have power structures in place that give them a semblance of strength, which is neither earned nor deserved. Perhaps recognising (subconsciously - there is no evidence to suggest these people are actively capable of introspection), the precariousness of their unnatural situation, they tighten their grip on the public narrative at every opportunity. One of their favourite ways of doing this is to change the meaning of words to suit their agendas. Rather than openly attempting to curb free speech, which they know would be met with opposition, they simply redefine it, gradually ratcheting in its scope. Free speech no longer means that you have a right to cause offense, and be tolerated despite your views, so long as those views can be substantiated. It now means that you have the opportunity to say whatever you like, so long as you don't infringe on anyone's right not to be offended. It follows from this that the scope of tolerance in our society must also have been narrowed considerably, for the left to have gained such a stranglehold on the window of acceptable views. This in turn suggests that as a society we place a far lesser emphasis on the nobility, and objectivity of virtue, which is probably stating the bleeding obvious to everyone posting here, and is a whole separate rant.

The great irony is that one of the primary aims of this site, and of all of us who post here, is to score more chicks. The greater the moral degradation, the more hedonistic we become as a society, the easier it will be for the motivated amongst us to increase our notch counts. We are, in a sense, cheerleaders for our own moral and spiritual ruin. Riddle me that.

[Ocelot]

(01-28-2015 09:16 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

I don't think there is anything vague or stretchable about hate speech. You give me 100 examples and I will tell you which ones are hate speech. Basically, it's speech that involves violence against a group of people, like jews, blacks, gays etc. Telling gays to go fuck themselves is okay. Telling gays to die or telling people to kill gays is not. What's so complicated about that? If you don't understand hate speech and then just call it bullshit, people are going to take that bullshit, stretch its boundaries and use it against you. If you understand what hate speech is and still think it's bullshit, then I'm concerned about you.

That isn't "hate speech". It's called "inciting violence", and was a crime long before "hate speech" was even a concept. It applies to individuals as well as groups, unlike hate speech. Incidentally, telling gays to die is not an incitement to violence, any more than telling individuals to go die is - telling other people to kill them would be. Hate speech is very specifically designed to synergise with identity politics by protecting "groups" from criticism. But only the agreed upon groups - there's no protection against hate speech for nazis, for instance, nor is there likely to be for straights, males, whites or Christians.

The reason hate speech is bullshit is because groups don't have rights to begin with, so they cannot be violated. Individuals have rights.

[lskdfjldsf]

Quote:

I don't think there is anything vague or stretchable about hate speech. You give me 100 examples and I will tell you which ones are hate speech. Basically, it's speech that involves violence against a group of people, like jews, blacks, gays etc. Telling gays to go fuck themselves is okay. Telling gays to die or telling people to kill gays is not. What's so complicated about that? If you don't understand hate speech and then just call it bullshit, people are going to take that bullshit, stretch its boundaries and use it against you. If you understand what hate speech is and still think it's bullshit, then I'm concerned about you.

The text in bold: are you forgetting a group? Because the more time goes on, the more and more it seems this concept was created to pen in only certain people. I don't mean to start another race debate, but it's a matter of logic.

Imagine you're standing in a field in the winter with two other friends. If both throw snowballs at you, does it matter if one friend did in order to make himself laugh, and the other friend did because he hates your skin color or orientation? Same crime, same effect, same result. Both should be subject to the same consequences.

If someone shoots a gun at you trying to end your life, why should one motivation for it carry a lengthier sentence than another? A crime is a crime, whether the motivation for it is "ethical" or "politically correct" is completely irrelevant.

[VincentVinturi]

(01-28-2015 09:16 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

I don't think there is anything vague or stretchable about hate speech. You give me 100 examples and I will tell you which ones are hate speech. Basically, it's speech that involves violence against a group of people, like jews, blacks, gays etc. Telling gays to go fuck themselves is okay. Telling gays to die or telling people to kill gays is not. What's so complicated about that? If you don't understand hate speech and then just call it bullshit, people are going to take that bullshit, stretch its boundaries and use it against you. If you understand what hate speech is and still think it's bullshit, then I'm concerned about you.

I'm 50/50 on you trolling us with this ludicrous statement.

What you're saying is that you can determine what is and what isn't hate speech based on your feeeeelings about it.

"I know it when I hear it" simply means than when something feeeels like hate speech to you, then it's hate speech, duh.

But if it doesn't feel like hate speech to ME, then whose feelings are right and whose feelings are wrong?

Going back to the example you used, if I want to tell gays to die and I go stand on the street corner yelling "kill the homos!" you're saying I shouldn't have that liberty.

But by telling gays to die, I haven't hurt a single fag.

You can't punish people for things they say without going down a slippery slope. You either have freedom of speech, or you don't have freedom of speech.

You punish people for committing crimes, not for flapping their mouths.

If your vision were instituted worldwide, it would be goodbye RooshVForum, goodbye ROK, goodbye anything and anybody that doesn't agree with some bureaucrats feelings at the moment.

[Truth Teller]

According to the American Bar Association,

Quote:

Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.

In reality, hate speech often is thrown around as a way of quashing dissent without actually engaging with its arguments. For example, with the recent gay marriage movement, opposition is categorized as "hate speech" without actually discussing any of the points (such as gay men having very high rates of sexually transmitted disease).

[Ocelot]

(01-28-2015 10:49 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

According to the American Bar Association,

Quote:

Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.

Good to know the bar is set nice and high for this heinous crime, then.

Can there be any doubt, at this point, that hate speech is just a way of codifying feminine thought in law. I mean really, offending and/or insulting someone being a criminal offence?

Counterargument: I am part of a group that is deeply offended and insulted by the concept of hate speech laws, send someone to jail for coming up with this retarded bullshit please.

[Sonsowey]

The point of it is that it is not precisely defined.

Accusing someone of hate-speech is useful to people because it can be used in any situation to silence any POV they don't like.

It doesn't have to be incitation to violence, for instance. It doesn't have to be hateful at all. It could be a factual statement that they feel bad about.

[Saga]

Australia's criminalization of "hate speech" goes even further than that.

Quote:

It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people, and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or some or all of the people in the group.

Let the gross insanity of that sink in. It doesn't even have to offend anyone, it just has to be seen as "reasonably likely" to do so.

[The Reactionary Tree]

Here is a lesson in Hate Speech 101:

Not hate speech


You see, this is really progressive. It shows Jesus buttfucking God. This is edgy. This is art. Making fun of Christians is okay.

Not hate speech


Once again, this is art. It is very progressive. White people aren't really a race of people because race is a social construct but we must get rid of "whiteness" so it is okay to make fun of white people.

Not hate speech

You see, this is free speech. These women are just having a good ole chuckle over a man who had his penis chopped off. This is funny. This is comedy and comedy is protected by free speech.

Now for what is hate speech. Hate speech is really anything that progressives hate.

So here are some examples of Hate speech.

Hate Speech


You see, this is hate speech because it makes fun of Muslims and that's just wrong. Muslims have feelings and this hurts their feelings. This is not funny.

Hate Speech


Once again, pure hate. Does this even need an explanation? This makes fun of Native Americans and so that's mean. We cannot even have mean pictures. I'm surprised that the SJWs don't drop a nuclear bomb on the city of Cleveland for having this Nazi propaganda as their team logo.

Hate Speech

As you can see, this is recording hate speech in action. You are not allowed to approach girls and talk to them. All of those men should be jailed for sexual harassment and perpetuating rape culture. I mean, geez, this is Roosh V Forum owned by that Roosh V guy. Isn't that guy a misogynist? RVF is like Stormfront for cis-het males and everyone here should be sent to a FEMA Camp.

Hate Speech

You see, Ron Paul is a Nazi. He does not support Israel. Doesn't he know that Israel is the Jewish state? Anyone who does not support Israel is clearly a Nazi. Thank you Ben Stein for calling out Ron Paul for the anti-Semite that he is.

Hate Speech

Thank you Jimmy Carter. Any criticism of Obama is racist. Jeez, don't you Tea Baggin RepubliKKKans know that Obama is black??! Of course you do! You are evil Stormfronters who want to bring back slavery!

That concludes our lesson in Hate Speech. Hopefully you all got this gist of how Hate Speech works.

[turkishcandy]

(01-28-2015 10:48 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 09:16 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

I don't think there is anything vague or stretchable about hate speech. You give me 100 examples and I will tell you which ones are hate speech. Basically, it's speech that involves violence against a group of people, like jews, blacks, gays etc. Telling gays to go fuck themselves is okay. Telling gays to die or telling people to kill gays is not. What's so complicated about that? If you don't understand hate speech and then just call it bullshit, people are going to take that bullshit, stretch its boundaries and use it against you. If you understand what hate speech is and still think it's bullshit, then I'm concerned about you.

I'm 50/50 on you trolling us with this ludicrous statement.

What you're saying is that you can determine what is and what isn't hate speech based on your feeeeelings about it.

"I know it when I hear it" simply means than when something feeeels like hate speech to you, then it's hate speech, duh.

But if it doesn't feel like hate speech to ME, then whose feelings are right and whose feelings are wrong?

Going back to the example you used, if I want to tell gays to die and I go stand on the street corner yelling "kill the homos!" you're saying I shouldn't have that liberty.

But by telling gays to die, I haven't hurt a single fag.

You can't punish people for things they say without going down a slippery slope. You either have freedom of speech, or you don't have freedom of speech.

You punish people for committing crimes, not for flapping their mouths.

If your vision were instituted worldwide, it would be goodbye RooshVForum, goodbye ROK, goodbye anything and anybody that doesn't agree with some bureaucrats feelings at the moment.

I wasn't trolling, I didn't mean I'm the judge of what constitutes hate speech. I meant I CAN make the distinction and it's not vague to me. I hate when people take my words out of context.

Maybe you might be trolling. You don't have to physically hurt someone for it to be a crime. What about libel? What about attempted murder? According to your logic, these things should not be crime because no harm done.

No, you should not be able to have the liberty to promote violence against anyone. It's not slippery slope, it's not flapping their mouths, it's a serious K.K.K shit.

Just because some American feminists are trying to put their agenda in it doesn't mean hate speech is created to serve SJWs. Hate speech is a European invention after WW2, for obvious reasons. Cause you don't have it nor need it in America doesn't mean it's bullshit. It serves a certain purpose.

Why does my view contradict RVF? Do we promote violence in RVF? If so, then it better contradict RVF.

No matter how much I insist hate speech is about violence, you guys are gonna flip it upside down and make it a tool for SJWs to use it against red pill views. What's the point of this discussion I wonder.

Wikipedia:

Quote:

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

[TheWastelander]

(01-28-2015 11:17 AM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  

That concludes our lesson in Hate Speech. Hopefully you all got this gist of how Hate Speech works.

[Glaucon]

you do not understand, hate speech is liquid, it is progressive. trying to define hate speech is hate speech!

[H1N1]

(01-28-2015 11:18 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 10:48 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 09:16 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

I don't think there is anything vague or stretchable about hate speech. You give me 100 examples and I will tell you which ones are hate speech. Basically, it's speech that involves violence against a group of people, like jews, blacks, gays etc. Telling gays to go fuck themselves is okay. Telling gays to die or telling people to kill gays is not. What's so complicated about that? If you don't understand hate speech and then just call it bullshit, people are going to take that bullshit, stretch its boundaries and use it against you. If you understand what hate speech is and still think it's bullshit, then I'm concerned about you.

I'm 50/50 on you trolling us with this ludicrous statement.

What you're saying is that you can determine what is and what isn't hate speech based on your feeeeelings about it.

"I know it when I hear it" simply means than when something feeeels like hate speech to you, then it's hate speech, duh.

But if it doesn't feel like hate speech to ME, then whose feelings are right and whose feelings are wrong?

Going back to the example you used, if I want to tell gays to die and I go stand on the street corner yelling "kill the homos!" you're saying I shouldn't have that liberty.

But by telling gays to die, I haven't hurt a single fag.

You can't punish people for things they say without going down a slippery slope. You either have freedom of speech, or you don't have freedom of speech.

You punish people for committing crimes, not for flapping their mouths.

If your vision were instituted worldwide, it would be goodbye RooshVForum, goodbye ROK, goodbye anything and anybody that doesn't agree with some bureaucrats feelings at the moment.

I wasn't trolling, I didn't mean I'm the judge of what constitutes hate speech. I meant I CAN make the distinction and it's not vague to me. I hate when people take my words out of context.

Maybe you might be trolling. You don't have to physically hurt someone for it to be a crime. What about libel? What about attempted murder? According to your logic, these things should not be crime because no harm done.

No, you should not be able to have the liberty to promote violence against anyone. It's not slippery slope, it's not flapping their mouths, it's a serious K.K.K shit.

Just because some American feminists are trying to put their agenda in it doesn't mean hate speech is created to serve SJWs. Hate speech is a European invention after WW2, for obvious reasons. Cause you don't have it nor need it in America doesn't mean it's bullshit. It serves a certain purpose.

Why does my view contradict RVF? Do we promote violence in RVF? If so, then it better contradict RVF.

No matter how much I insist hate speech is about violence, you guys are gonna flip it upside down and make it a tool for SJWs to use it against red pill views. What's the point of this discussion I wonder.

Wikipedia:

Quote:

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

I don't think you highlighted all of the important parts of the Wikipedia quote:

1. '...forbidden because it MAY...' ie, may, not does. Anything that an unelected body or populist movement DECIDES, based on emotion not fact, MAY affect someone they like (an give them the means to go after those they don't).

2. 'Prejudicial action'. This is not violence, this could be something as simple as boycotting halal restaurants. If you promote the boycott of all establishments that have inhumane slaughtering practices, you are now a hate speaking fascist.

Vague laws and overly restrictive laws are means for the abuse of the unpopular, unfashionable, or politically dangerous.

[turkishcandy]

Okay, obviously hate speech depends on each country's own law. There is no universal definition of hate speech. In America it doesn't even exist, so to you it's much more liquid and stretchable to whatever you want it to be. Fine, I also oppose a law that protects any group or class from criticism, naturally.

When I said hate speech I had in mind only the promotion of violence. Obviously some people think that's okay too. With them I can argue about this forever.

Except for that, I back down from my view. I realize hate speech is a dangerous concept, especially today, and it should be replaced by more specific and concrete laws that protect individuals, not groups.

[The Reactionary Tree]

Anyone on this forum that supports hate speech laws should do everyone here a favor and kill yourself because you better believe that hate speech laws would apply to us here at Roosh V Forum. Roosh would be jailed, RoK would be shut down, and everyone on this forum would be charged with violating hate speech laws.

[amity]

(01-28-2015 11:14 AM)Saga Wrote:  

Australia's criminalization of "hate speech" goes even further than that.

Quote:

It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people, and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or some or all of the people in the group.

Let the gross insanity of that sink in. It doesn't even have to offend anyone, it just has to be seen as "reasonably likely" to do so.

Christ. Words fail me. We really are into 'Idiocracy' territory when something like this can be passed into law.

[Dusty]

(01-28-2015 11:54 AM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  

Anyone on this forum that supports hate speech laws should do everyone here a favor and kill yourself because you better believe that hate speech laws would apply to us here at Roosh V Forum. Roosh would be jailed, RoK would be shut down, and everyone on this forum would be charged with violating hate speech laws.

Recall, roosh already is on the SPLC list of haters.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/in...-the-sites

[Michael P]

"Imagine you're standing in a field in the winter with two other friends. If both throw snowballs at you, does it matter if one friend did in order to make himself laugh, and the other friend did because he hates your skin color or orientation? Same crime, same effect, same result. Both should be subject to the same consequences. "

Very true. I would go one further.

Leftist say that society deters women away from leadership positions, that it shames X race intro doing that....bla..bla....

If society has such a strong effect would it not make sense to PUNISH LESS a person who was brought up in a home (culture) where he was thought that X are inferior. Thus because HIS parents thought him so, he is less responsible. THIS IS LUDACRIS !

Either way. And I agree with the guy who said 'they are moving the goalpost". Next they might say :
a T-shirt that sais "I RESPECT and like Blond women" is hate speech against redheads.

There should be absolute freedom of speech. Anything. And TOLERANCE is a patronizing view. People should RESPECT the others RIGHT to an opinion. But maybe don't respect his opinion.