On Hate Speech

Dohboy wrote:It's a simple question. Do you wish to fight them with words? Or do you wish to fight them with bayonet and bullets?

Babylon 5 said it best.
"Never throw the first punch, but always throw the last."

Anyone who calls for violence to be the first resort is, in my opinion, undeserving of respect. Defending oneself and those who rely on you is noble, striking out at others not so.

Michael Everett wrote:Anyone who calls for violence to be the first resort is, in my opinion, undeserving of respect. Defending oneself and those who rely on you is noble, striking out at others not so.

Which is fine and all, but ... how long would you say it's appropriate for a group with legitimate grievances to ask for redress politely before you would allow them the right to act with violence, even if it is a mild form of violence like protesting?

Simple question with a complex answer.
Every situation is different, with various levels of importance, different urgency levels, and often asymmetric levels of participants.
Unless it puts you at risk you should always ask first. Not advisable in dictatorships.
Otherwise if polite requests are ignored, then non violent protests are perfectly ethical.
Civil disobedience is the next level. Climate protesters here have evolved some complex tricks, like supergluing two protester's hands together, then encasing their arms in quick setting concrete drums before dropping them onto busy streets. Difficult to shift without putting them at risk.
Violence can be ethical. I would like to think that I would have used a rifle if I had been in a Jewish ghetto in Germany in the late 1930s.

The E wrote:

Michael Everett wrote:Anyone who calls for violence to be the first resort is, in my opinion, undeserving of respect. Defending oneself and those who rely on you is noble, striking out at others not so.

Which is fine and all, but ... how long would you say it's appropriate for a group with legitimate grievances to ask for redress politely before you would allow them the right to act with violence, even if it is a mild form of violence like protesting?

Daryl wrote:Simple question with a complex answer.
Every situation is different, with various levels of importance, different urgency levels, and often asymmetric levels of participants.

Yes, exactly!

There's a MLK quote about Peace being not the absence of strife, but the presence of justice. That's what I think about when I see people all aghast that BLM turned to rioting in places (to pick a completely random example): It is essentially impossible for an outsider to accurately tell if a given protest is an unwarranted escalation or a legitimate way to achieve goals (and no: Telling people that violence can never be the answer is completely ahistorical bullshit. Relying on the powerful to relent against peaceful protests can only work if the powerful are ready to be convinced, which may never happen; Sometimes it is absolutely necessary to grab power by force to get justice).

What I'm getting at is that it is easy for those of us privileged enough to not be victim of racial or class violence to cry foul when those victims turn to violence when their pleads are being ignored or dismissed.

The E wrote:What I'm getting at is that it is easy for those of us privileged enough to not be victim of racial or class violence to cry foul when those victims turn to violence when their pleads are being ignored or dismissed.

I've seen some "people" arguing that the BLM-protests where anti-white protests. I just have to wonder what goes on in their heads when they equate asking for equal treatment and opportunity is anti-white.

Joat42 wrote:

The E wrote:What I'm getting at is that it is easy for those of us privileged enough to not be victim of racial or class violence to cry foul when those victims turn to violence when their pleads are being ignored or dismissed.

I've seen some "people" arguing that the BLM-protests where anti-white protests. I just have to wonder what goes on in their heads when they equate asking for equal treatment and opportunity is anti-white.

IS that the "information" peddled by the media in Sweden? BLM marches are anti white bigotry? Absolutely no one has said so.

Everyone is onboard with the slogan. Nearly everyone is against the proposals said BLM organization is pushing which is essentially Communism. So naturally the opposition to those opposing communism/marxism called them racists to bypass the Communism debate and the opposition to the opposition slander called them anti white bigotry as that sounds better in short idiot sound bites for international news or internet so called "articles" instead of honorless slanderers who are purposefully obscuring the actual statements...

As for treatment/opportunity, it already exists. Was fixed going on 50+ years now.

Anyone who expects all aspects of society to fix themselves in a single generation when said grandma/grandpas are alive and well who grew up with those emotions of hate/bigotry on both sides and have passed this onto the next generation... yea, not going to happen. When all the race hustlers are all dead, maybe. So give healing 20 more years for the vast majority to die off leaving truly fringe fringers.

The E wrote:

Michael Everett wrote:Anyone who calls for violence to be the first resort is, in my opinion, undeserving of respect. Defending oneself and those who rely on you is noble, striking out at others not so.

Which is fine and all, but ... how long would you say it's appropriate for a group with legitimate grievances to ask for redress politely before you would allow them the right to act with violence, even if it is a mild form of violence like protesting?

Unfortunate but true regarding human nature. No one compromises until kicked in the ass or slapped upside the head. Be it via speech or physically.

Naturally those in the wrong label said speech as "hateful" as they hold power.

Why defining hate speech as offensive/wrong/throw in jail is truly offensive as it gives no recourse truth, for compromise, leaving the only outlet avenue for grievances; physical violence.

The only hateful thing about speech? Those labeling it hate speech.

Relax wrote:IS that the "information" peddled by the media in Sweden? BLM marches are anti white bigotry? Absolutely no one has said so.

I actually wrote people, not media, and it has been peddled by these people on social media. Btw, media in Sweden actually have publication-rules they have to follow which means they can't publish made up shit and lies that's so common in certain US media.

Relax wrote:Everyone is onboard with the slogan. Nearly everyone is against the proposals said BLM organization is pushing which is essentially Communism.

I haven't seen BLM advocate for the government to size the means of production. Perhaps you can enlighten us to these proposals that pushes Communism?

Relax wrote:So naturally the opposition to those opposing communism/marxism called them racists to bypass the Communism debate and the opposition to the opposition slander called them anti white bigotry as that sounds better in short idiot sound bites for international news or internet so called "articles" instead of honorless slanderers who are purposefully obscuring the actual statements...

Well, it didn't stop Rudy Giuliani, Trump, Ben Carson, Mark Levin and PragerU to call them Marxist (note: Marxism is a political ideology, Communism is Marxist-Leninism in practice. The funny thing, Marxism today isn't a basis for Communism since the ideology has evolved from Karl Marx and Lenin's days. The Marxist ideology today usually means working towards equalizing the disparity between the poor and the rich).

Anyway, to get back to the topic, Giuliani and others didn't stop at calling BLM Marxist, they also called them racist. The reasoning behind calling BLM racist is that the movement excludes everyone else who is not black which totally misses the point of the BLM slogan, that black lives matters too.

International media reported on all this (well, aside from the Murdoch owned media who regularly cherry-pick things to fit Murdoch's old man views), because international media isn't the partisan mess most of the US media is.

Relax wrote:As for treatment/opportunity, it already exists. Was fixed going on 50+ years now.

No, it was not fixed as evidenced by what is actually happening in the US.

Relax wrote:Anyone who expects all aspects of society to fix themselves in a single generation when said grandma/grandpas are alive and well who grew up with those emotions of hate/bigotry on both sides and have passed this onto the next generation... yea, not going to happen. When all the race hustlers are all dead, maybe. So give healing 20 more years for the vast majority to die off leaving truly fringe fringers.

So it wasn't actually fixed 50+ years ago then.

A couple of things Relax said were interesting to me.
Firstly "Nearly everyone is against the proposals said BLM organization is pushing which is essentially Communism." illustrates something that I have been saying for ever. Most people (those on the left and those in the middle) accept that others hold dissenting views. However those on the right just can't get that. Everyone they know, has the same views, and only a few fringe idiots are dissenters.
Secondly. "When all the race hustlers are all dead, maybe. So give healing 20 more years for the vast majority to die" reminds me of a funny Newsreel clip (before TV), at the time we switched to decimal currency (1964). A little old lady was complaining "Why can't they wait until all the old people have died?".
Regarding foreign media, Australia gifted Murdock to the world, so rest assured we have had news.com's version. However we also have other sources.
My impression from watching news clips and reading articles was that - The BLM marchers generally were well intentioned (and multi racial), however attached to some marches there were opportunistic thugs, looters and arsonists who were just there for a rumble.
I really can't get the Communistic angle, unless Relax means something different to my understanding. No one calling for a totalitarian state to nationalise the means of production.

Daryl wrote:A couple of things Relax said were interesting to me.
Firstly "Nearly everyone is against the proposals said BLM organization is pushing which is essentially Communism." illustrates something that I have been saying for ever. Most people (those on the left and those in the middle) accept that others hold dissenting views. However those on the right just can't get that. Everyone they know, has the same views, and only a few fringe idiots are dissenters.

Addendum: People on the left usually have a deeper understanding of right-wing philosophy and politics than right-wingers have of left-wing philosophy and politics. As evidence, I present Relax and his definition of communism, which is so broad as to include literally everything to the left of whatever his personal position is.