That’s an absolutist position. It only works if there’s a singular definition of hate that is universally accepted.
If you aren’t careful with how this is addressed, you end up with people being arrested for calling someone a muppet.
The response to hate cannot be to muzzle it, but to call it out and make sure its impact is understood.
Once you open the door to muzzling people, the next guy in charge can abuse the shit out of that. A measured, thoughtful approach has to be the answer.
In a similar vein to what is considered “reasonable” in courts, is how it needs to be done yes it can be abused, it already is. If someone said we need to kill all russians, they are all bad and I want everyone to know how they are the cause of all bad things, should we allow that person to continue? We can call them out, and we do, but then they have followers who will inevitably start attacking russians, or perceived russians. That’s why it can’t be accepted.
I don’t disagree that it can’t be accepted if they are inciting violence, that’s already a different classification of speech. If he or anyone else ever openly advocated for violence against anyone they should be shut down and brought up on charges.
And the fun part is, people like kirk lead people to these views points, like stand by and stand down. You need to be able to read between the lines. Kirk talking about abortion being like the Holocaust will incite some of his listeners to action, which starts small with protests and grows into bombing abortion clinics
Yes, yes it does. That’s why it’s so hard to be the good guys.
No, it goes against society, it doesn’t, and it can’t be given equal weight to hate
That’s an absolutist position. It only works if there’s a singular definition of hate that is universally accepted.
If you aren’t careful with how this is addressed, you end up with people being arrested for calling someone a muppet.
The response to hate cannot be to muzzle it, but to call it out and make sure its impact is understood.
Once you open the door to muzzling people, the next guy in charge can abuse the shit out of that. A measured, thoughtful approach has to be the answer.
In a similar vein to what is considered “reasonable” in courts, is how it needs to be done yes it can be abused, it already is. If someone said we need to kill all russians, they are all bad and I want everyone to know how they are the cause of all bad things, should we allow that person to continue? We can call them out, and we do, but then they have followers who will inevitably start attacking russians, or perceived russians. That’s why it can’t be accepted.
I don’t disagree that it can’t be accepted if they are inciting violence, that’s already a different classification of speech. If he or anyone else ever openly advocated for violence against anyone they should be shut down and brought up on charges.
And the fun part is, people like kirk lead people to these views points, like stand by and stand down. You need to be able to read between the lines. Kirk talking about abortion being like the Holocaust will incite some of his listeners to action, which starts small with protests and grows into bombing abortion clinics
That’s a leap. If you start banning speech based on what might happen if it’s interpreted a certain way by extremists, the game is lost.
It’s not a leap, it’s exactly what happens, it’s why kirk was shot, it’s stochastic terrorism.