Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Taliban are amassing for war


Kurshok
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

Ok let me approach this from a different angle. There's ill will euphemisms thrown around, fake bot accounts, provocateurs that cultivate and spread the angst. Usually to the benefit of some political establishments and activists. Not all of that is direct incitement of violence. And working class people don't have the time to do mental exercises and balance this against other opinions. They pick the most sparkling, most loud, most angry views. It's enough to keep throwing fuel at this partisan stand-off for activists and politicians to reap the profits.

As society evolves - new categories of population groups can fall under the protection of hate speech laws - new LGBTQ+ groups, new religions etc. Laws are always late for changes in society. That's why hate speech laws are needed

 

 

I find it strange how hard it is to get a coherent answer to a simple question, given the sheer volume being written in response to it.  Instead I'm getting lots of examples of speech that people don't like.  And some of the examples that are presented as "obvious" reasons why we need hate speech laws seem to me to be obvious reasons why they're a bad idea.

The closest things I could find as potential answers were:  "The point of hate speech is to create a proper atmosphere where everyone can be encouraged to speak out" and to protect society against "ill will euphemisms thrown around, fake bot accounts, provocateurs that cultivate and spread the angst."   Is that what you think hate speech laws are supposed to do?  I think it's pretty clear that hate speech laws don't do any of those things, and aren't even designed to do so, but that would at least give us somewhere to begin a discussion.

We can't even begin to talk about whether hate speech laws are important or effective or hypocritical until we have a clear answer to the question of what they are intended to do. 

 

 

Quote

The point is that the violence was not directly incited. The fearmongering and badmouthing led to increased aggression and violence against certain groups (in this case immigrants). That this violence was tolerated is, of course, another point, but the aggression itself was caused by speeches that were allowed.

 

How was it established that the increased aggression was "caused by speeches" as opposed to other factors?

I've already pointed out how that exact same argument is used all the time to ban things:  "Violent video games may not directly incite school shootings.  But the bloodlust created by these violent, murderous games leads to increased aggression and violence in our youth, and school shootings have gone up ever since these violent games were released.  Therefore violent video games should be illegal."  If you're going to accept that argument for hate speech laws, you'd have to accept it for violent video games/movies, role-playing games, most forms of music, comic books, etc. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

And working class people don't have the time to do mental exercises and balance this against other opinions.

That's about the most honest thing that's been posted in this thread so far.

"Hate speech" is an invention of the political and cultural elites to promote their particular ideology, while ensuring that those disgusting "working class people", who are too stupid to properly understand controversial issues, don't have the chance to answer back.

Of course this view of certain social classes as essentially brain-dead sub-humans is a form of hate in itself, but rampant hypocrisy and double standards are standard operating procedure for most authoritarians.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Springheel said:

 

I find it strange how hard it is to get a coherent answer to a simple question, given the sheer volume being written in response to it.  Instead I'm getting lots of examples of speech that people don't like.  And some of the examples that are presented as "obvious" reasons why we need hate speech laws seem to me to be obvious reasons why they're a bad idea.

The closest things I could find as potential answers were:  "The point of hate speech is to create a proper atmosphere where everyone can be encouraged to speak out" and to protect society against "ill will euphemisms thrown around, fake bot accounts, provocateurs that cultivate and spread the angst."   Is that what you think hate speech laws are supposed to do?  I think it's pretty clear that hate speech laws don't do any of those things, and aren't even designed to do so, but that would at least give us somewhere to begin a discussion.

We can't even begin to talk about whether hate speech laws are important or effective or hypocritical until we have a clear answer to the question of what they are intended to do. 

 

 

 

How was it established that the increased aggression was "caused by speeches" as opposed to other factors?

I've already pointed out how that exact same argument is used all the time to ban things:  "Violent video games may not directly incite school shootings.  But the bloodlust created by these violent, murderous games leads to increased aggression and violence in our youth, and school shootings have gone up ever since these violent games were released.  Therefore violent video games should be illegal."  If you're going to accept that argument for hate speech laws, you'd have to accept it for violent video games/movies, role-playing games, most forms of music, comic books, etc. 

The easiest thing to do is to look for what hate speech is rather than what it is not. Cherry picking hate speech laws does not address the challenges posed by free speech abuse. Ultimately time will show what is the outcome.

 

Speeches increase aggression not as opposed by other factors. They contribute together with other factors. 

 

Hate speech sometimes works for books such as Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler but these rules work as long as these things are in mainstream politics. If Germans acknowledged the swastika  simply as a historcal sign from Asia, probably laws banning propaganda of Nazism wouldn't be so strict anymore. So if you refer to that kind of media than yeah, that's hate speech.

 

30 minutes ago, OrbWeaver said:

That's about the most honest thing that's been posted in this thread so far.

"Hate speech" is an invention of the political and cultural elites to promote their particular ideology, while ensuring that those disgusting "working class people", who are too stupid to properly understand controversial issues, don't have the chance to answer back.

Of course this view of certain social classes as essentially brain-dead sub-humans is a form of hate in itself, but rampant hypocrisy and double standards are standard operating procedure for most authoritarians.

We both know that working class people simply don't do that on average. I come from a working class background and most of my friends also have that upbringing. Poverty, a lack of opportunities makes people do funny stuff. You should look more often at migrants who know what real hard life is like. They are also working class. And they can be victims of the white working class. Has been like that since forever when you have no money and influence.

I don't see any ideology here. No conspiracy. It's just common sense.

Sometimes brain-dead sub-humans are the working class lumpensproletariat, other times its the bourgeoisie rich - especially kids with old money. Everything is relative.

Edited by Anderson

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

badge?user=andarson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Anderson said:

The easiest thing to do is to look for what hate speech is 

 

It's apparently not easy at all.  I've been trying to get a straight answer to "what hate speech is" for two pages now.

Until we establish a clear definition of what hate speech laws are supposed to do, we can't begin to have a discussion about whether they are successful or not.  But for some reason, hate speech proponents seem determined to avoid answering the question.

 

41 minutes ago, Anderson said:

Cherry picking hate speech laws does not address the challenges posed by free speech abuse. Ultimately time will show what is the outcome.

 

 That is absolutely NOT the way you establish laws in a just society.  You don't just let the state make laws without explanation and hope they eventually work out...what could be more fascist than that?  If the state doesn't have a good justification for making something illegal, then it should not be illegal.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anderson said:

We both know that working class people simply don't do that on average.

Why single out working-class people? Everybody is affected by psychological biases, especially confirmation bias (seeking out information that confirms your views, ignoring everything else). This applies to educated, intelligent, supposedly rational people just as much as it applies to less-educated people.

One of the main purposes of free speech is to cut through the cognitive biases and air a range of opinions, allowing the best arguments to win the debate. Obviously this can't happen if powerful actors legislate to protect their views by redefining any disagreement as "hate speech", which is why more aggressive censorship laws are associated with governments who promote ridiculous views (such as the North Korean leader being some kind of nature-defying god).

1 hour ago, Anderson said:

Sometimes brain-dead sub-humans are the working class lumpensproletariat, other times its the bourgeoisie rich - especially kids with old money.

Sure, but the bourgeois rich are the ones who make the laws, which is why the hate speech laws we see in the West are heavily skewed towards issues which the privileged elites care about (such as using the correct transgender pronouns), whereas there is very little desire to outlaw insults against the more socially conservative working classes ("chavs", "white van man", "thick Brexit-voting racists" etc).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Springheel said:

 

It's apparently not easy at all.  I've been trying to get a straight answer to "what hate speech is" for two pages now.

Until we establish a clear definition of what hate speech laws are supposed to do, we can't begin to have a discussion about whether they are successful or not.  But for some reason, hate speech proponents seem determined to avoid answering the question.

 

 

 That is absolutely NOT the way you establish laws in a just society.  You don't just let the state make laws without explanation and hope they eventually work out...what could be more fascist than that?  If the state doesn't have a good justification for making something illegal, then it should not be illegal.

 

I am not a guru to give the universal definition of what is hate speech in this forum. States adopt whatever laws they so desire. Possibilities to harmonize laws are always welcome. But we haven't reached that point yet. I've already pointed out that there are numerous recommendations, drafts, projects to accelerate unified regulations and practices in this respect. Make what you will of it. The tendency is unarguably towards criminalizing hate speech. Can't stop it.

 

We don't live in a perfect world. You can't expect everyone to magically agree on a certain policy instantly. That's not how legislative process works. Look at the war on drugs. Decriminalization of drugs is very slow, but it still goes on with mixed success in different countries. Other countries like Russia, on the contrary imposed more severe penalties against drugs users and dealers. Bottom line - a magic wand to fix hate speech does not exist. That's why hate speech laws are the first step to solve the problem.

 

31 minutes ago, OrbWeaver said:

Why single out working-class people? Everybody is affected by psychological biases, especially confirmation bias (seeking out information that confirms your views, ignoring everything else). This applies to educated, intelligent, supposedly rational people just as much as it applies to less-educated people.

One of the main purposes of free speech is to cut through the cognitive biases and air a range of opinions, allowing the best arguments to win the debate. Obviously this can't happen if powerful actors legislate to protect their views by redefining any disagreement as "hate speech", which is why more aggressive censorship laws are associated with governments who promote ridiculous views (such as the North Korean leader being some kind of nature-defying god).

Sure, but the bourgeois rich are the ones who make the laws, which is why the hate speech laws we see in the West are heavily skewed towards issues which the privileged elites care about (such as using the correct transgender pronouns), whereas there is very little desire to outlaw insults against the more socially conservative working classes ("chavs", "white van man", "thick Brexit-voting racists" etc).

You are correct that the rich use the poor when maneuvering for power. Everybody can make mistakes. Nobody is prescient or without fault.

 

However I don't understand how hate speech should be extrapolated to compare it with censorship in North Korea. In other words, North Korea is lawless. It is only lawful evil in name only. In reality state actors there, like in any dictatorship have absolute discretion - no checks and balances. Every decision can be made arbitrarily. Each arbitrariness reinforces ordinary citizens' situation of being mere bargaining chips for total control over the region. You are mistaken though to see this as some kind of communist conspiracy. Communism is just a label. Eastern Europe is still plagued by old problems from USSR in mentality and so on. Hate speech laws though are progressive norms that can work if implemented correctly by the right people. You can turn any good law into a bad one by using bad faith techniques. For example you can make fake victims of human trafficking to testify against innocent people to make an appearance of super justice. In reality the fake victims were prostitutes who worked for their pimps. That's not justice. But it helps the USAID justify its grants as foreign aid to other countries. But as usual nobody cares.

 

I see where you're coming from. I understand that you want to say enforcing certain laws against the rich - such as money laundering is more important than hate speech laws. I agree with that. More serious crimes should be investigated with priority. But technically it's all about properly implementing public policy and having the right people in power.

If you see hate speech laws as an attempt to divide and conquer people based on disagreements between whites and other races... Well, IMHO the way is just to deal with these laws and accepting that the stereotypical straight white male isn't perfect. There's more important stuff than to bother with this. There are still undeniable truths in any joke or stereotype. Regardless how small they may be. For example many Romani are undeducated, illiterate and therefore prone to crime. But that doesn't mean they don't deserve a place in society like many other illegal immigrants.

9938a4540bd168b28de21888031fdc52.jpg

Edited by Anderson
  • Like 2

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

badge?user=andarson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OrbWeaver said:

That's about the most honest thing that's been posted in this thread so far.

"Hate speech" is an invention of the political and cultural elites to promote their particular ideology, while ensuring that those disgusting "working class people", who are too stupid to properly understand controversial issues, don't have the chance to answer back.

Of course this view of certain social classes as essentially brain-dead sub-humans is a form of hate in itself, but rampant hypocrisy and double standards are standard operating procedure for most authoritarians.

Exactly. It's disguting political marketing targeting the desperate ones to create a poor-vs-poor constant state of war. And paranoid people / conspiracy theorists / keyboard warriors  feed all this devilish dynamic on social medias. Useful idiots 2.0, so narcissistic to not realize they're tools in the hands of the REAL power, not the fictional conspiracies ones!

Representative Democracy=marketization of the civilization itself, with the help of the willing slaves seeing themselves as freedom fighters!

And in this history turn these self-proclamed/appointed "freedom fighters" are the right wingers in all the "civilized" West ,wanting to free us from the "globalist elites" with some nationalistic model of the society ahah.

FOOLS. They're really can't undestand it's all a GAME. A perfectly bipartisan game.

Edited by lowenz
  • Like 1

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OrbWeaver said:

which is why the hate speech laws we see in the West are heavily skewed towards issues which the privileged elites care about (such as using the correct transgender pronouns)

They do NOT care about, it's all fictional. It's posing having totally different goals. In a right-mirrored world you'll got the same "hate speech" nonetheless, targeting who writes/speaks against the "Motherland" or the "Fatherland" and you'll be prosecuted for treason....but not because the leaders are patriots nor because "Homeland" is a real thing, but because they need this idealistic machine working to process more and more consensus and getting voted!

Just progressive constructs against tribal constructs with the same electoral goals: KEEP THE POWER.

  • Like 1

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Springheel said:

How was it established that the increased aggression was "caused by speeches" as opposed to other factors?

I've already pointed out how that exact same argument is used all the time to ban things:  "Violent video games may not directly incite school shootings.  But the bloodlust created by these violent, murderous games leads to increased aggression and violence in our youth, and school shootings have gone up ever since these violent games were released.  Therefore violent video games should be illegal."  If you're going to accept that argument for hate speech laws, you'd have to accept it for violent video games/movies, role-playing games, most forms of music, comic books, etc. 

In the video, a politician was speaking out against immigrants and soon after people that had a clear connection to his party were acting out against immigrants, even naming the politician while doing so. I would say that there is a clear correlation, which cannot be made between violence and video games. Sure there are other factors that contribute to these situations. Maybe the person in question was beaten up by an immigrant one time, maybe he was stolen from and blames them or had other resentments to begin with. Still, the speeches of said politician incited him to act violently against immigrants. It may be that he would have done that at some point anyway, but the speech seems to have given him confirmation that what he is doing was right. I agree that the speech in itself was not the sole reason, but it contributed and may have given the final impulse he needed.

What I am trying to say is that the right rhetoric can create an atmosphere in which violence against a singled out group is perceived as "not bad" or "acceptable" and humans tend to target their aggression, frustration etc. somewhere. So the aggression against these singled out groups is a welcome target for them to vent. It is very likely that this would have been targeted at someone else (their wife, a competing sports club, maybe even themselves), but being given a pointer they choose the singeld out group.

The main problem I see in this discussion is exactly what you already pointed out: we are missing a clear definition of what "hate speech" entails. Is using the wrong preferred pronoun hate speech? Is insulting people? Is blaming the economic collapse on immigrants? Without a clear definition, I believe that this discussion is rather pointless, because people might simply talk past one another. And of course without a clear definition of "hate speech", we cannot define what the effect a law against them should have.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OrbWeaver said:

Why single out working-class people?

Because they're really prone to physical violence thanks to "meritocratic vision of the world" 😛

They see themselves as "condamned prisoners of injustice" thanks to meritocratic propaganda so they're inclined to believe in every scapegoat theory (immigrants stealing jobs, rights, welfare, etc.) you throw to them as you throw a bone to a dog.

Just give them the "right" spin and you'll got willing soldiers. Why? In a non-(fake)meritocracy-driven world the working class vote left because they realise meritocratic propaganda is a bait/trap. In a (fake)meritocracy-driven world they vote right dreaming to be the "ones who will succeed with sheer will following the guide/fuhrer/dux"

Of course they'll will NOT succeed but they will be sacrificed like the good soldiers they're so eager to be "fighting the globalist elites".....for the other elites 😛

 

This is not "hate speech", this is how the democratic game is *designed* to be. They are grown stupid by *design*. They're grown to be used and thrown away. And because they literally love this disfunctional democratic engagement process just let them self-destroy voting Trump-like figures.

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good basis on which to debate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

But I think that people with a minimum of ethics can differentiate very well between a speech that attacks a group with arguments and speeches that are based solely on defamations, machismo, racism or xenophobes with bad intentions.
and a speech about the jihadists, signaling their obvious danger and that must be fought if there is a real risk.

Hate speeches are ALWAYS based on biased perceptions, own fears and particular interests, using defamations and falsehoods, never verifiable and true facts.
Worse, forming unfounded fears in the population to reinforce their argument.

Can a homosexual or a foreigner commit a crime? Of course there are cases like this, but the homo / xenophobic politician or journalist turns it into a speech about the dangerousness of these groups, which is obviously false, but enough for groups of flat EEGs to take it as a justification for carrying out attacks on said groups. , with results sometimes of the death of those attacked, as the last case of the 17-year-old gay boy, killed by a group who attacked him without reason with sticks and kicks.

Sys Specs Laptop Lenovo V145 15AST, AMD A9- 9425 Radeon R5 - 5 cores 3,1 GHz  RAM 8Gb, GPU 1+2 Gb -Win10 64 v21H1

Favorite online apps you may like too 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking to Wikipedia for a balanced discussion of "hate speech" is like using a Fox News talk show to decide whether Trump was a good president.

Although they do at least mention that the definition of the term varies between countries, and does not exist at all in certain legal systems. Which basically brings us back to square one. There is no precise, universal definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate speech simply stands for "politically-exploitable-hate inspiring speech".

All the question in its totality is nothing more than a political weapon (either the hate speech itself and the law against it)

Either political wings can, alternately, be for or against the law (the dual scenario is to call "hate speech" any antinationalistic "self-hating" speech and fight the related "hate speech" law as a "resistence", as you can see in classical '900 fascist dictatorships with their censorship laws).

 

They are really nothing more than tools to gain consensus. Thanks demo*N*cracy (or consensus-based dictatorships, being the representative democracy the evolution of the former ones from the power-handling perspective) to create these mind-manipulating conundrums.

 

There are no "truths" here, only an everlasting consensus-seeking hunger from both sides, sometimes acting as rulers / elites, sometimes acting as freedom fighters / "small people" defenders. They're perfecty swappable on demand :)

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today's democracies are certainly not perfect, but democracy is the best system of the alternatives out there, if it is taken seriously, because it is the only system that allows solving problems that arise in a way that is acceptable to all parties.
But for this, a collaborative parliamentary work of the representatives of the various groups is needed. Mutual disqualification and attacks violate this democratic principle.
Hate speech does not solve the problems of a society, but rather creates them, because it divides the population.
Interests can be very different in the various groups and it is not a question of excluding one party for the benefit of another, which certainly does not solve any problem. Unique parties and dictatorships, what these politicians who use hate speech intend do not take into account that a single administration cannot function or cover the challenges faced by a society, which by itself must be collaborative to function as such .

Sys Specs Laptop Lenovo V145 15AST, AMD A9- 9425 Radeon R5 - 5 cores 3,1 GHz  RAM 8Gb, GPU 1+2 Gb -Win10 64 v21H1

Favorite online apps you may like too 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberal representative democracy - from the power handling perspective - has finely tuned the consensus-based dictatorship mechanisms.

The problem is not they're not perfect, the problem is they're TOO MUCH perfect at this  😛

"Freespeech" today is totally enslaved to politically-represented interest.

We're NOT living in an Orwell-like authoritarian world (North Korea or similar states apart), we're living in a nightmarish Huxley-like society.

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

It may be that he would have done that at some point anyway, but the speech seems to have given him confirmation that what he is doing was right. I agree that the speech in itself was not the sole reason, but it contributed and may have given the final impulse he needed.

 

It's ironic that this is the same argument used by those who blame Islam for terrorist attacks like 9/11.  "His religion told him that what he was doing was right.  The Quran's command to "make war on the unbelievers" was not the sole reason, but it contributed and may have given the final impulse he needed." 

I guess, by extension, you would be supportive of making that religion illegal? 

 

 

Quote

 

A dictionary definition doesn't answer the original question, which was "What does it protect against that isn't already covered by other laws?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Springheel said:

 

It's ironic that this is the same argument used by those who blame Islam for terrorist attacks like 9/11.  "His religion told him that what he was doing was right.  The Quran's command to "make war on the unbelievers" was not the sole reason, but it contributed and may have given the final impulse he needed." 

I guess, by extension, you would be supportive of making that religion illegal? 

That's a leading, suggestive question.

 

5 hours ago, OrbWeaver said:

Looking to Wikipedia for a balanced discussion of "hate speech" is like using a Fox News talk show to decide whether Trump was a good president.

Although they do at least mention that the definition of the term varies between countries, and does not exist at all in certain legal systems. Which basically brings us back to square one. There is no precise, universal definition.

Wikipedia is no panacea - in spite of this, as a rule, it is provides some good references to start research.

 

Edited by Anderson

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

badge?user=andarson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Anderson said:

That's a leading, suggestive question.

 

And?  This isn't a courtroom, it's a conversation.

When someone's argument suggests a conclusion, a suggestive question is a good way to find out whether the person has considered and supports that conclusion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Springheel said:

 

It's ironic that this is the same argument used by those who blame Islam for terrorist attacks like 9/11.  "His religion told him that what he was doing was right.  The Quran's command to "make war on the unbelievers" was not the sole reason, but it contributed and may have given the final impulse he needed." 

I guess, by extension, you would be supportive of making that religion illegal? 

 

 

 

A dictionary definition doesn't answer the original question, which was "What does it protect against that isn't already covered by other laws?"

The Qur'an is not more violent than the bible, jihad does not say anything other than to defend its creed with all means, a commandment also present in the bible, it does not say anything about IMPOSING the creed by all means on others, even with violence .
It is the interpretation that each branch of the religions makes of the corresponding sacred books.

That religions today, with their dogma from past eras and from other societies that have nothing to do with ours, still make sense, is the subject of another debate.

Sys Specs Laptop Lenovo V145 15AST, AMD A9- 9425 Radeon R5 - 5 cores 3,1 GHz  RAM 8Gb, GPU 1+2 Gb -Win10 64 v21H1

Favorite online apps you may like too 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Springheel said:

 

It's ironic that this is the same argument used by those who blame Islam for terrorist attacks like 9/11.  "His religion told him that what he was doing was right.  The Quran's command to "make war on the unbelievers" was not the sole reason, but it contributed and may have given the final impulse he needed." 

I guess, by extension, you would be supportive of making that religion illegal?

Far from it. I believe in religious freedom. Just as I believe in other human rights (which also includes the right to life and the prohibition of slavery and torture). Consequently, I would not support making Islam illegal. However, in order to provide a peaceful together, I believe that certain aspects of the religion should be changed. E.g. the forceful spread of the religion. As someone mentioned before in this thread: the freedom of one person ends, where the freedom of another starts. This includes that I have the same right to my religion as a muslim has, and consequently, no muslim has the right to force Islam on me, just as I have no right to force Christianity on a muslim. So, I reject your black and white view of "accept it as it is or make it illegal". There is still a compromise possible, if all concerned people show some respect to one another.

I have never read the Qur'an, so I cannot say how much of the required violence is actually stated in there and how much is interpretation. If the forceful spread of the religion is an unchangeable part of the religion, then yes, a religion like this has no place in a world that wants to provide human rights to all people. I am aware that this a dilemma: if I want to respect all human rights, I would have to accept this religion, but at the same time I cannot, because it contradicts the human rights. But as Zerg Rush stated in his last comment, Christianity also had a (violent) missionary phase and was able to change to respect other religions, so I hope that this is also possible for Islam.

Edited by Destined
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

As someone mentioned before in this thread: the freedom of one person ends, where the freedom of another starts.

 

Ok, great.  We're generally in agreement on that point.  Books like the Quran and the Bible can tell their followers to do violent things, and some of their followers DO violent things, but we don't try to make the books illegal.  Instead, we condemn the violence and we try to use reason to counter the violent messages.

Why is that approach not also sufficient for "hate speech"?

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Springheel said:

 

Ok, great.  We're generally in agreement on that point.  Books like the Quran and the Bible can tell their followers to do violent things, and some of their followers DO violent things, but we don't try to make the books illegal.  Instead, we condemn the violence and we try to use reason to counter the violent messages.

Why is that approach not also sufficient for "hate speech"?

 

 

 

This approach is not sufficient for hate speech because the latter is applied to current struggles and controversies. and not to extinct conflicts of the past. So the way to balance free speech and freedom of religion, conscience and thought is to ban extremist derivative offshoots from religious, philosophical works. The Bible and Quran written thousands of years ago simply do not produce the same social resonance as modern interpretations of them. Some modern interpretations are hate speech against groups that exist today.

None of that means that it's illegal to study these materials for your own private, educational purposes. Nor is it illegal to make art or science based on these materials. All that hate speech is designed to do is make restricted content harder to access and spread.

Edited by Anderson

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

badge?user=andarson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anderson said:

That's a leading, suggestive question.

And that's an evasive non-answer.

Do you or do you not agree that "The Koran causes terrorism" involves the same logic as "Hate speech causes violence against minorities"?

If you agree that they are the same, why do you support censoring "hate speech" but oppose censoring the Koran?

If you don't agree that they are the same, what is the important difference between the two arguments which makes the first one invalid but the second one valid?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Anderson said:

This approach is not sufficient for hate speech because the latter is applied to current struggles and controversies. and not to extinct conflicts of the past. So the way to balance free speech and freedom of religion, conscience and thought is to ban extremist derivative offshoots from religious, philosophical works. The Bible and Quran written thousands of years ago simply do not produce the same social resonance as modern interpretations of them.

 

 

Oh please.  You're going to try and argue that the Quran and Bible get a pass because they aren't "current"??  They're among the most widely read books in the world.

"The Holy Bible is the most read book in the world. In the past 50 years, the Bible has sold over 3.9 billion copies. "
 

Coming in at #3 in the world, "The Quran is believed to be the words straight from God, Allah. It is the book that the Muslims use as a guide full of religious texts of how they should live their lives. ... The Quran is the most read book in the world by the Islamic community. "

https://capitalizemytitle.com/what-are-the-most-read-books-in-the-world-of-all-time/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • Recent Status Updates

    • irg

      Watching warmly for The Black Parade, The Broken Goddess and Blood Death Wish Ep.4. Sometimes the best things in life actually are free.
      · 0 replies
    • STiFU

      We are taking our son on his very first holiday trip to see the sea for the first time. 🙂 Will be back in a week.
      · 2 replies
    • Gilkar

      When I was a young man my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have him around. As I grew older I was amazed at how much the old man had learned in such a short time.
      · 2 replies
    • jaxa

      RTX 3090 Super, RTX 3070 Ti 16 GB, RTX 2060 12 GB
      https://wccftech.com/nvidia-launching-rtx-3090-super-rtx-3070-ti-16gb-and-rtx-2060-12gb-by-january-2022/
      · 0 replies
    • duzenko

      CPU benchmark time - compiling DarkRadiant (2nd run)
      i5 8600K 6C/6T@4.4GHz DDR4 2x2133MHz 9MB cache
      Parallel builds: 1. 3:57 Parallel builds: 6 (default). 2:28 r5 1600AF 6C/12T@3.3GHz DDR4 1x2666MHz 16 MB cache, temp folder on HDD
      Parallel builds: 1. 5:05 Parallel builds: 4. 2:47 Parallel builds: 6. 2:55 Parallel builds: 12 (default). 2:57
      · 6 replies
×
×
  • Create New...