Name Someone From "The Other Side" Whom You Admire

[Deleted member 457759]

That entirely depends on how we're defining hate speech laws. The usual standards of inciting violence and such remain but with an understanding that certain language is more likely to incite violence in different people then "hate" speech laws can be perfectly natural within our existing framework if they act as a modifier from a sentencing perspective.

If we're talking about penalizing language simply because it's based on hate, that I can't support.

To throw together an example - Random person says "I'm going to kill all the [insert racial epithet] in this room." Well in a room full of people who don't match that epithet, the chance that the language is going to incite violence or be interpreted as actionable is different from a room where some of the people match that epithet.

I picked an extremely easy to determine example but the principles would remain the same as the examples become more and more nebulous, the difficulty of proving the crime becomes more difficult.

So, let's take something like cross burning or swastikas. Burning a cross is more likely to be perceived as "fighting words" to someone deeply attached to the Civil Rights Movement than to someone who has no interest or knowledge thereof. The act of burning a cross isn't intrinsically speech that leads to violence....except to a specific portion of the population. The issue then becomes one of prosecuting the issue where the defendant could allege that the victims shouldn't have felt threatened because someone else would not have felt the same. There's a balance there that has to maintained. Again, cross burning is an easy example in this country because it has a well documented historical implication. But you take something like "Pepe the Frog" - there's no well documented historical context. So, stretching that to be covered by "hate" speech is, imho, overstepping the point of those types of laws.

So, again, finding a balance is extremely tricky and is going to come down to whether we're targeting speech because it's hateful (legal overstep) or we're recognizing that fighting words type of speech can be different when we're discussing hate based discourse (legal clarity).

Sorry I'll respond to this later, excellent response.

 

[Fluffernutter]

I assume many in DC admire folks from the other side of the aisle. The gridlock and arguing is just for show.

For example, Scalia and RBG were actually very good friends

 

[tramendous]

Ben shapiro.

 

[DragRacer]

Although we may disagree politically, I have a profound admiration for Katy Perry because she’s got fantastic breasts.

 

[Phr3121]

Man, you are a 'Rat Fink' fan? Wow! That is awesome. I bet the majority of folks here have no idea who he was. I remember building Revell RF models when I was a kid. @DragRacer

"Mother's Worry"

 

[DragRacer]

There’s a pretty big overlap between MMA fans and gearheads, so there’s probably quite a few familiar with big daddy and rat fink.

Man, you are a 'Rat Fink' fan? Wow! That is awesome. I bet the majority of folks here have no idea who he was. I remember building Revell RF models when I was a kid. @DragRacer

"Mother's Worry"

 

[moreorless87]

I think that Lenin and Trotsky were good people and good statesmen, but they certainly weren't moral or ideological purists. I think both, Trotsky certainly, would have either deconstructed the Russian bureaucracy and reigned in the violence of the State, or at the very least quickly leveraged them into external revolution. Certainly, neither would have built the inwardly brutal Socialism in One State.

Of course, Stalin and Mao can fuck off.

The parallel I always raise is the shift in Kuomintang leadership from Sun Yat-sen to Chiang Kai-shek, I think that shows you that its not only "leftism" that's especially prone to shifts to authoritarianism after a revolution. Moreso that the kind of environment that leads to a revolution(backward absolute monarchies in decline) also tends towards instability that can leave the door open for a strong man to take control.