You're viewing a single thread.
I strongly disagree with the sentiments of these tweets but why would they be considered hate speech? What an I missing?
Musk over here trying to conflate gender-affirming hormone medication being taken by 16-17 year olds with the mutilation of children's genitalia.
This is thinly veiled hate speech. They are straw-manning those they see as "other", for the purpose of placing themselves in a morally superior position. It is arguably defensible lies (I didn't mean, I just meant...), functioning as a dogwhistle to manufacture outrage over imagined extremes that aren't actually happening, all to stir hatred in the public against LGBTQ+ people and ideologies. And they cap it off with a call to action.
This is painfully similar to how hate speech against the Jewish people started.
This is painfully similar to how hate speech against the Jewish people started.
"The Cultural Marxists are promoting deviant behaviour to weaken Western Civilization."
"The Jews are promoting deviant behaviour to weaken the Aryan Race."
Yeah these guys are saying the same things now as were being said a hundred years ago. And lately a lot of people are dropping the code words.
We know what this kind of thing led to in the past.
So yeah, it's very painfully similar.
We all have basically the same brains we did 100 years ago.
Genetic evolution stopped when civilization started and we were no longer small tribes killing each other for survival. Our brains work on that level.
Fascism is basically just a modern iteration of feudalism. Our instincts make it feel right to have traditional hierarchies based off of ancestry and we should kill the other tribes to make our tribe stronger. Of course those instincts are destructive to civilization, but because of civilization we're always going to have them.
I know this will be an unpopular opinion in this thread but this isn't hate speech in Canada. It's a vile perspective shared by someone with many impressionable followers but it's not hate speech. Labeling this exchange as hate speech weakens this term and is not useful in shifting discourse or people's opinions.
When you use the phrase, "hate speech in Canada," it is clear you are using the specific legal standard for criminal speech in Canada. That is not the only definition of hate speech. More generally, anything intended to express or incite hatred is hate speech, it need not be legally found to be a crime.
Nearly any discourse can be considered hate speech using your broad definition. And when everything is hate speech nothing is hate speech, it loses it's usefulness as a term. Let's use accurate language
Let's deal with that problem if it comes up. And it never fucking has. But meanwhile we have had the converse problem an AWFUL lot of times.
If you cannot recognize and boldly denounce hate, that's a you problem, and you need to deal with it. If you cannot recognize these specific tweets as expression of hate, then just fuck off and leave the rest of us alone.
Like seriously, you're more concerned with some abstract "purity of the language" issue than opposing actual hate that is actually hurting people you probably know by simplycalling it hate.
Don't straw man and then get aggressive about opinions I obviously don't hold. Feel free to ask questions if something is unclear. These kinds of disingenuous discources are part of the problem.
Straw man, my ass. You refuse to call hate hate.
IANAL but under Canadian law it probably isn't, since people who undertake an activity were the target as opposed to a fixed, identifiable group.
You'd have to go with a different but related Jordan Peterson quote for that. There's many to choose from.