CDZ Hate speech leads to hate killings

[Tommy Tainant]

The Global Divide on Homosexuality


Since this thread began with notions that hate speech leads to violence, and hate speech against gays leads to violence against gay people, to be put in the proper perspective, it is necessary to examine which societies do and do not support rights for gay people. Since I support such rights, and others only CLAIM to support them, let's take a look at this, folks, shall we?

As anybody can see as plainly as day, Muslims are the very LEAST likely people in the world to support gay rights, as hatred of homosexuals is near universal. Heck, the support for actually killing gay people is alarmingly high, so you can't have it both ways, people. If you want to support gay rights, then support gay rights. If you want to promote a hateful ideology called Islam, then promote a hateful ideology called Islam.

This notion that gay rights only matter in our liberal, western societies while any criticism of the political-religious ideology that persecutes gay people is "hate speech" is complete bunk. It is just feel-good double talk that has nothing to do with the values involved, but everything to do with saying the politically correct things everybody else is saying.

Its a false argument.Even looking at your data it is clear that the issues are more closely related to education and diversity. There are many christian nations that show similar levels of homophobia as those muslim ones you highlight. Christian Homphobes cite bible passages that are homophobic as well. In fact it is the hardline African Bishops that are driving Anglicanism to schism over the subject of Gay rights .
Jamaican Gays can actually claim political asylum in the UK because of their sexuality.
In brief the whole world has some way to go in order to reach acceptable standards and not just Muslim nations.
And to answer your initial point. Hate speech from any quarter is not acceptable.

 

[Correll]

Are you saying that hate speech directed against Muslims is legitimized?

Calling the criticism of their homophobia, their misogyny, and their lack of humanist values "hate speech" only clouds the issue of what is and what is not hate speech, as you are protecting hatred rather than opposing it, especially inasmuch as it is their choice to hold these hateful beliefs.

What makes something "hate speech" is broadbrushing an entire group as opposed to criticizing specific actions. But again - I do not support legislating hate speech, since it is to some degree subjective, and free speech is an important right. For example, criticizing Islamic intolerance for homosexuality would not be hate speech imo. Calling Islam a pedophilic religion and it's followers pedophiles or a religion of rapists (hide your women and children!) would be hate speech that should be countered with facts, but attacking the issue of child marriages, forced marriages within certain Islamic countries would not be. The other aspect that I think marks hate speech is the willingness to uncritically accept and unspread unverified claims like conspiracy theories in order to tar an entire group. So are you attacking behavior or

Examples would be rape statistics and Muslims, where those that are critical of claims are labeled rape supporters - it's another way of protecting hatred is it not?

If you "criticize Islamic intolerance for homosexuality" you are "broadbrushing an entire group".

YOu are NOT criticizing specific actions.

BUT you are also being truthful.

And it is something you should consider before you import a significant population of that group into your nation.

Indeed, it would be failing your duty to consider the interests of your fellow citizens who are homosexual.

I have had online discussions with a liberal Dutch citizen who was gay and was NOT happy about the inhibiting effect that a sizable Islamic population had had on the regional gay night life.

To be clear, because they are afraid of violence if they are "out" having a good time.

 

[Coyote]

The Global Divide on Homosexuality


Since this thread began with notions that hate speech leads to violence, and hate speech against gays leads to violence against gay people, to be put in the proper perspective, it is necessary to examine which societies do and do not support rights for gay people. Since I support such rights, and others only CLAIM to support them, let's take a look at this, folks, shall we?

As anybody can see as plainly as day, Muslims are the very LEAST likely people in the world to support gay rights, as hatred of homosexuals is near universal. Heck, the support for actually killing gay people is alarmingly high, so you can't have it both ways, people. If you want to support gay rights, then support gay rights. If you want to promote a hateful ideology called Islam, then promote a hateful ideology called Islam.

This notion that gay rights only matter in our liberal, western societies while any criticism of the political-religious ideology that persecutes gay people is "hate speech" is complete bunk. It is just feel-good double talk that has nothing to do with the values involved, but everything to do with saying the politically correct things everybody else is saying.

In my opinion, the Abrahamic faiths as a WHOLE are not very tolerant of homosexuality, and when you look at the more conservative sects of those religion, there is a decreasing tolerance. Tolerance does NOT come from religion, it comes from secular values (imo) that recognize the rights of every human being as an individual. I do absolutely agree agree that Islam, at this time, is the least evolved in regards to accepting homosexuals.

Is a refusal to condemn the religion and all it's adherents in entirety then considered "only claiming to support such rights?" or is it better to look at the records of individual and actions of individual countries and work to promote CHANGE rather than just damn them?

You offer up only two choices - either you are promoting a hateful ideology or supporting gay rights. I think that is a fallacy.

I would put forth that IGNORING other countries or religions intolerance of homosexuals because you only want to focus on Islam, as a whole, makes a mockery of the claim of support.

Pew Research had an interesting article on the "Global Divide on Homosexuality", pointing out that greater acceptance occurred in more secular and affluent countries. Middle East scored pretty negatively (no surprise), as did Africa, including countries that are not Islamic majority countries such as Ghana and Uganda which scored even worse than some of the ME countries in whether society should accept homosexuality. You can make a fair argument that penalties are much harsher in Muslim countries (for example, death) and extremely conservative countries are the worst. In my opinion, the real problem is less the religion itself, because each of the Abrahamic faiths damns homosexuals, but rather the mixing of religion and government which inhibits the formation of more secular attitudes.

So where does hate speech fall in this? You can hate an entire religion for it's attitudes towards homosexuality, and that's not hate speech, but when you call for expelling all Muslims or nuking Mecca, telling crowds Muslim Americans can't be patriotic or good Americans, can't be trusted, or creating a database of all people of a certain religion - then that crosses the line - BUT - unless it actively calls for violence or encourages attacks on people, it should not be legislated against.

 

[Coyote]

Are you saying that hate speech directed against Muslims is legitimized?

Calling the criticism of their homophobia, their misogyny, and their lack of humanist values "hate speech" only clouds the issue of what is and what is not hate speech, as you are protecting hatred rather than opposing it, especially inasmuch as it is their choice to hold these hateful beliefs.

What makes something "hate speech" is broadbrushing an entire group as opposed to criticizing specific actions. But again - I do not support legislating hate speech, since it is to some degree subjective, and free speech is an important right. For example, criticizing Islamic intolerance for homosexuality would not be hate speech imo. Calling Islam a pedophilic religion and it's followers pedophiles or a religion of rapists (hide your women and children!) would be hate speech that should be countered with facts, but attacking the issue of child marriages, forced marriages within certain Islamic countries would not be. The other aspect that I think marks hate speech is the willingness to uncritically accept and unspread unverified claims like conspiracy theories in order to tar an entire group. So are you attacking behavior or

Examples would be rape statistics and Muslims, where those that are critical of claims are labeled rape supporters - it's another way of protecting hatred is it not?

If you "criticize Islamic intolerance for homosexuality" you are "broadbrushing an entire group".

YOu are NOT criticizing specific actions.

BUT you are also being truthful.

And it is something you should consider before you import a significant population of that group into your nation.

Indeed, it would be failing your duty to consider the interests of your fellow citizens who are homosexual.

I have had online discussions with a liberal Dutch citizen who was gay and was NOT happy about the inhibiting effect that a sizable Islamic population had had on the regional gay night life.

To be clear, because they are afraid of violence if they are "out" having a good time.

I disagree. Anti-homosexual attitudes exist in many non-Muslim countries. People who immigrate must learn tolerance whatever they personally feel, and must follow new country's laws and norms. I think there is an issue if more people immigrate than can be adequately assimilated but that varies by country, and depends on that countries own resources. Christianity had to adjust and evolve and it is a recent and tenuous evolution that is still fragile (look at what is happening in Russia). So will other religions.

But I think you're right and I'm wrong in broad brushing an entire group - it isn't necessarily hate speech, maybe hateful though. Perhaps it depends on the context.

 

[Correll]

Are you saying that hate speech directed against Muslims is legitimized?

Calling the criticism of their homophobia, their misogyny, and their lack of humanist values "hate speech" only clouds the issue of what is and what is not hate speech, as you are protecting hatred rather than opposing it, especially inasmuch as it is their choice to hold these hateful beliefs.

What makes something "hate speech" is broadbrushing an entire group as opposed to criticizing specific actions. But again - I do not support legislating hate speech, since it is to some degree subjective, and free speech is an important right. For example, criticizing Islamic intolerance for homosexuality would not be hate speech imo. Calling Islam a pedophilic religion and it's followers pedophiles or a religion of rapists (hide your women and children!) would be hate speech that should be countered with facts, but attacking the issue of child marriages, forced marriages within certain Islamic countries would not be. The other aspect that I think marks hate speech is the willingness to uncritically accept and unspread unverified claims like conspiracy theories in order to tar an entire group. So are you attacking behavior or

Examples would be rape statistics and Muslims, where those that are critical of claims are labeled rape supporters - it's another way of protecting hatred is it not?

If you "criticize Islamic intolerance for homosexuality" you are "broadbrushing an entire group".

YOu are NOT criticizing specific actions.

BUT you are also being truthful.

And it is something you should consider before you import a significant population of that group into your nation.

Indeed, it would be failing your duty to consider the interests of your fellow citizens who are homosexual.

I have had online discussions with a liberal Dutch citizen who was gay and was NOT happy about the inhibiting effect that a sizable Islamic population had had on the regional gay night life.

To be clear, because they are afraid of violence if they are "out" having a good time.

I disagree. Anti-homosexual attitudes exist in many non-Muslim countries. People who immigrate must learn tolerance whatever they personally feel, and must follow new country's laws and norms. I think there is an issue if more people immigrate than can be adequately assimilated but that varies by country, and depends on that countries own resources. Christianity had to adjust and evolve and it is a recent and tenuous evolution that is still fragile (look at what is happening in Russia). So will other religions.

But I think you're right and I'm wrong in broad brushing an entire group - it isn't necessarily hate speech, maybe hateful though. Perhaps it depends on the context.

Except that they won't.

Not for generations, AND even then the current plan is to keep importing new unassimilated immigrants.

And if your point about Islam's homophobia is true, then it is not hateful to discuss it.

Indeed, it become irresponsible to NOT discuss it.

And your concerns about Christians is a complete REd Herring which has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[Coyote]

Are you saying that hate speech directed against Muslims is legitimized?

Calling the criticism of their homophobia, their misogyny, and their lack of humanist values "hate speech" only clouds the issue of what is and what is not hate speech, as you are protecting hatred rather than opposing it, especially inasmuch as it is their choice to hold these hateful beliefs.

What makes something "hate speech" is broadbrushing an entire group as opposed to criticizing specific actions. But again - I do not support legislating hate speech, since it is to some degree subjective, and free speech is an important right. For example, criticizing Islamic intolerance for homosexuality would not be hate speech imo. Calling Islam a pedophilic religion and it's followers pedophiles or a religion of rapists (hide your women and children!) would be hate speech that should be countered with facts, but attacking the issue of child marriages, forced marriages within certain Islamic countries would not be. The other aspect that I think marks hate speech is the willingness to uncritically accept and unspread unverified claims like conspiracy theories in order to tar an entire group. So are you attacking behavior or

Examples would be rape statistics and Muslims, where those that are critical of claims are labeled rape supporters - it's another way of protecting hatred is it not?

If you "criticize Islamic intolerance for homosexuality" you are "broadbrushing an entire group".

YOu are NOT criticizing specific actions.

BUT you are also being truthful.

And it is something you should consider before you import a significant population of that group into your nation.

Indeed, it would be failing your duty to consider the interests of your fellow citizens who are homosexual.

I have had online discussions with a liberal Dutch citizen who was gay and was NOT happy about the inhibiting effect that a sizable Islamic population had had on the regional gay night life.

To be clear, because they are afraid of violence if they are "out" having a good time.

I disagree. Anti-homosexual attitudes exist in many non-Muslim countries. People who immigrate must learn tolerance whatever they personally feel, and must follow new country's laws and norms. I think there is an issue if more people immigrate than can be adequately assimilated but that varies by country, and depends on that countries own resources. Christianity had to adjust and evolve and it is a recent and tenuous evolution that is still fragile (look at what is happening in Russia). So will other religions.

But I think you're right and I'm wrong in broad brushing an entire group - it isn't necessarily hate speech, maybe hateful though. Perhaps it depends on the context.

Except that they won't.

Not for generations, AND even then the current plan is to keep importing new unassimilated immigrants.

Except that is a common canard - certain immigrants (insert ethnic/religious group of your choice) "won't assimilate". And that is the sort of broadbrushing that leads to hate. Assimilation rates vary according to country (not religion) of origin and the country they are going to. For example, studies have shown that Muslims in the US and Canada are one of the best assimilated groups, UK as well.

And if your point about Islam's homophobia is true, then it is not hateful to discuss it.

Indeed, it become irresponsible to NOT discuss it.

And your concerns about Christians is a complete REd Herring which has nothing to do with the topic.

No, it is not hateful to discuss it, and no, talking about the Christian faith in relation to homophobia is as much to do with the topic as talking about the Muslim faith (particularly when you look at the Pew research). When you say that it's a red herring then the question comes up are you as much concerned for homosexual rights as you are for attacking Islam?

But I agree, none of that is hate speech but how it is discussed determines on whether it's hateful wouldn't you say?

 

[Coyote]

What is hate speech? Can hate speech be an overused term? Can there be debate about what qualifies as hate speech? Clearly the answer to these questions is yes. We're way beyond that, though. The events in Chicago were over the top, and truly dangerous. Anyone who fails to see the relation between Trump's hate-filled rhetoric and the mob mentality of his supporters is turning a willfully blind eye to the truth.

The tragedy of our current political dynamic is that the anger people are feeling is so justified and so completely misapplied. Our political representatives are wholly co-opted and offer no real representation. So punch another citizen who is also angry. Blame people who disagree with you. Don't blame the system which offers no real choices. Don't recognize divide and conquer tactics. Allow the true strength of the country to be diluted. What a tragic waste.

In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not.

Being born with a certain skin color or gender is not a choice. Religion, on the other hand, very much is a choice and so is we cannot differentiate between that which is immutable and that which isn't, we only end up sanctioning much that IS harmful in our zeal to avoid the very hatred we think we are fighting.

Being gay is not a choice, and gay people do not harm others as a bi-product of their being gay. As such, the prejudice against them is unwarranted and when speech rises to a level where it threatens them with harm, it is hate speech. Those who follow a religion, however, should be able to be criticized openly and honestly because they have chosen to hold certain opinions. If those opinions harm others when acted upon as is the case with so many Islamic beliefs, for instance, then calling the reaction to them "hate speech" not only misses the mark by an enormous degree, it actually serves the purpose of the hatreds, themselves.

"In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not."

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Innate or a choice? How can hate speech be innate? You choose to say something hateful. Hate speech that is not harmful to others? You mean like stuff you whisper into your pillow? I guess it makes sense to differentiate between speech that causes emotional pain and that which instigates millions of people being stuffed into ovens, but it's all designed to cause harm.

If someone is being criticized openly and honestly then that cannot be called hate speech, by definition. What, precisely, qualifies as open and honest criticism is always debatable, but certainly a lot of the currently vogue anti-Muslim rhetoric is both ill informed and ill-intentioned, and therefore meets my criterion for hate speech. Mr. Trump's non-stop barrage of hate is the most loathsome thing I've seen, in my lifetime, from an American public figure.

You make interesting points. I agree - it's important to differentiate between innate and choice and choices which are harmful to others and those that are not.

Homosexuality illustrates both those points - if it's inate (which I believe it is) the person has no choice, and if it's a choice, it harms no one.

"Ill-intentioned" seems key here - intention matters. If the intention is to inflict hurt on a group, then it would be hate speech.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Are you saying that hate speech directed against Muslims is legitimized?

Calling the criticism of their homophobia, their misogyny, and their lack of humanist values "hate speech" only clouds the issue of what is and what is not hate speech, as you are protecting hatred rather than opposing it, especially inasmuch as it is their choice to hold these hateful beliefs.

What makes something "hate speech" is broadbrushing an entire group as opposed to criticizing specific actions. But again - I do not support legislating hate speech, since it is to some degree subjective, and free speech is an important right. For example, criticizing Islamic intolerance for homosexuality would not be hate speech imo. Calling Islam a pedophilic religion and it's followers pedophiles or a religion of rapists (hide your women and children!) would be hate speech that should be countered with facts, but attacking the issue of child marriages, forced marriages within certain Islamic countries would not be. The other aspect that I think marks hate speech is the willingness to uncritically accept and unspread unverified claims like conspiracy theories in order to tar an entire group. So are you attacking behavior or

Examples would be rape statistics and Muslims, where those that are critical of claims are labeled rape supporters - it's another way of protecting hatred is it not?

If you "criticize Islamic intolerance for homosexuality" you are "broadbrushing an entire group".

YOu are NOT criticizing specific actions.

BUT you are also being truthful.

And it is something you should consider before you import a significant population of that group into your nation.

Indeed, it would be failing your duty to consider the interests of your fellow citizens who are homosexual.

I have had online discussions with a liberal Dutch citizen who was gay and was NOT happy about the inhibiting effect that a sizable Islamic population had had on the regional gay night life.

To be clear, because they are afraid of violence if they are "out" having a good time.

Yep. Pointing out what 97 percent believe is neith broad brushing nor motivated by an agenda. Broad brushing would be if one characterized all based upon attitudes that were not shared widely rather than those that are almost unanimous.


It is those who dedicate themselves to sophistry aimed at avoiding the truth who are abetting the hatred here.

 

[Skull Pilot]

All killings are hate killings

At the moment you kill someone you hate them

 

[Coyote]

Are you saying that hate speech directed against Muslims is legitimized?

Calling the criticism of their homophobia, their misogyny, and their lack of humanist values "hate speech" only clouds the issue of what is and what is not hate speech, as you are protecting hatred rather than opposing it, especially inasmuch as it is their choice to hold these hateful beliefs.

What makes something "hate speech" is broadbrushing an entire group as opposed to criticizing specific actions. But again - I do not support legislating hate speech, since it is to some degree subjective, and free speech is an important right. For example, criticizing Islamic intolerance for homosexuality would not be hate speech imo. Calling Islam a pedophilic religion and it's followers pedophiles or a religion of rapists (hide your women and children!) would be hate speech that should be countered with facts, but attacking the issue of child marriages, forced marriages within certain Islamic countries would not be. The other aspect that I think marks hate speech is the willingness to uncritically accept and unspread unverified claims like conspiracy theories in order to tar an entire group. So are you attacking behavior or

Examples would be rape statistics and Muslims, where those that are critical of claims are labeled rape supporters - it's another way of protecting hatred is it not?

If you "criticize Islamic intolerance for homosexuality" you are "broadbrushing an entire group".

YOu are NOT criticizing specific actions.

BUT you are also being truthful.

And it is something you should consider before you import a significant population of that group into your nation.

Indeed, it would be failing your duty to consider the interests of your fellow citizens who are homosexual.

I have had online discussions with a liberal Dutch citizen who was gay and was NOT happy about the inhibiting effect that a sizable Islamic population had had on the regional gay night life.

To be clear, because they are afraid of violence if they are "out" having a good time.

Yep. Pointing out what 97 percent believe is neith broad brushing nor motivated by an agenda. Broad brushing would be if one characterized all based upon attitudes that were not shared widely rather than those that are almost unanimous.

I think it's motivated by an agenda when it focus' solely on Muslims, in a variety of topics, ignores it when it occurs elsewhere, and broad brushes the entire religion by it's extremists. I agree that too much of Islam is intolerant of homosexuals, though I'm not sure what you're referring to with 97%. According to Pew - the numbers vary according to where and what questions are asked: Chapter 3: Morality

Yes, Islam needs to evolve in terms of gay rights. We have only very recently done so and, again, secularism has a lot to do with it.

It is those who dedicate themselves to sophistry aimed at avoiding the truth who are abetting the hatred here.

When people believe the "truth" is a simple black/white your with us/or against us dichotomy then it's easy to fall into hate speech because it reflects their world view and there is little desire to dig further and look for facts.

 

[Coyote]

All killings are hate killings

At the moment you kill someone you hate them

I don't think so....I think many times, indifference is a factor.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Are you saying that hate speech directed against Muslims is legitimized?

Calling the criticism of their homophobia, their misogyny, and their lack of humanist values "hate speech" only clouds the issue of what is and what is not hate speech, as you are protecting hatred rather than opposing it, especially inasmuch as it is their choice to hold these hateful beliefs.

What makes something "hate speech" is broadbrushing an entire group as opposed to criticizing specific actions. But again - I do not support legislating hate speech, since it is to some degree subjective, and free speech is an important right. For example, criticizing Islamic intolerance for homosexuality would not be hate speech imo. Calling Islam a pedophilic religion and it's followers pedophiles or a religion of rapists (hide your women and children!) would be hate speech that should be countered with facts, but attacking the issue of child marriages, forced marriages within certain Islamic countries would not be. The other aspect that I think marks hate speech is the willingness to uncritically accept and unspread unverified claims like conspiracy theories in order to tar an entire group. So are you attacking behavior or

Examples would be rape statistics and Muslims, where those that are critical of claims are labeled rape supporters - it's another way of protecting hatred is it not?

If you "criticize Islamic intolerance for homosexuality" you are "broadbrushing an entire group".

YOu are NOT criticizing specific actions.

BUT you are also being truthful.

And it is something you should consider before you import a significant population of that group into your nation.

Indeed, it would be failing your duty to consider the interests of your fellow citizens who are homosexual.

I have had online discussions with a liberal Dutch citizen who was gay and was NOT happy about the inhibiting effect that a sizable Islamic population had had on the regional gay night life.

To be clear, because they are afraid of violence if they are "out" having a good time.

Yep. Pointing out what 97 percent believe is neith broad brushing nor motivated by an agenda. Broad brushing would be if one characterized all based upon attitudes that were not shared widely rather than those that are almost unanimous.


It is those who dedicate themselves to sophistry aimed at avoiding the truth who are abetting the hatred here.

So is it not hate speech if its aimed at muslims ?

 

[Elvis Obama]

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Innate or a choice? How can hate speech be innate? You choose to say something hateful. Hate speech that is not harmful to others? You mean like stuff you whisper into your pillow? I guess it makes sense to differentiate between speech that causes emotional pain and that which instigates millions of people being stuffed into ovens, but it's all designed to cause harm.

.

You missunderstood.

I am talking about the target of the speech rather than the speech. People being targeted for factors beyond their control is an entirely different matter than their being targeted for their own decisions.

No. Fear and loathing is fear and loathing. If people want to slap a label on something to justify their hate, they will. As you are doing. Being right or wrong about that label isn't the point, though I know of no instance where that label was right. Nothing said about a billion and a half people can be rational, and therefore is always wrong. The question of "choice" in religious and cultural affiliation is irrelevant, but FWIW, also completely wrong. You do not choose your cultural affiliations. There are many who believe sexual identity is a choice because they believe that fact can be weaponized and used to harm gay people, whom they fear and loathe.

We've morphed from discussing the relationship between hate speech and violence to a conversation about whether hate speech against a religion can be justified because religion is a matter of choice. No social criticism can be valid if it fails to recognize that all countries are different and that within each country a spectrum of people exists. Some are primitive and seek to drag us backwards. The 20% of Trump supporters who believe abolishing slavery was a bad idea, for example. Many are forward thinking. Most are in the mushy middle and don't care that much. I am highly critical of the culture which predominates in Muslim countries. I recognize the difference, however, between blanket condemnations and targeted criticism. None of this has anything to do with hate speech and the incitement of violence. That is, frankly, a subject of such absurd obviousness that I find it difficult to believe anyone could argue for the opposite. The scapegoating of minority groups and the horrible bloodbaths that have resulted from this are, I would imagine, as old as humanity itself.

 

[Correll]

Calling the criticism of their homophobia, their misogyny, and their lack of humanist values "hate speech" only clouds the issue of what is and what is not hate speech, as you are protecting hatred rather than opposing it, especially inasmuch as it is their choice to hold these hateful beliefs.

What makes something "hate speech" is broadbrushing an entire group as opposed to criticizing specific actions. But again - I do not support legislating hate speech, since it is to some degree subjective, and free speech is an important right. For example, criticizing Islamic intolerance for homosexuality would not be hate speech imo. Calling Islam a pedophilic religion and it's followers pedophiles or a religion of rapists (hide your women and children!) would be hate speech that should be countered with facts, but attacking the issue of child marriages, forced marriages within certain Islamic countries would not be. The other aspect that I think marks hate speech is the willingness to uncritically accept and unspread unverified claims like conspiracy theories in order to tar an entire group. So are you attacking behavior or

Examples would be rape statistics and Muslims, where those that are critical of claims are labeled rape supporters - it's another way of protecting hatred is it not?

If you "criticize Islamic intolerance for homosexuality" you are "broadbrushing an entire group".

YOu are NOT criticizing specific actions.

BUT you are also being truthful.

And it is something you should consider before you import a significant population of that group into your nation.

Indeed, it would be failing your duty to consider the interests of your fellow citizens who are homosexual.

I have had online discussions with a liberal Dutch citizen who was gay and was NOT happy about the inhibiting effect that a sizable Islamic population had had on the regional gay night life.

To be clear, because they are afraid of violence if they are "out" having a good time.

I disagree. Anti-homosexual attitudes exist in many non-Muslim countries. People who immigrate must learn tolerance whatever they personally feel, and must follow new country's laws and norms. I think there is an issue if more people immigrate than can be adequately assimilated but that varies by country, and depends on that countries own resources. Christianity had to adjust and evolve and it is a recent and tenuous evolution that is still fragile (look at what is happening in Russia). So will other religions.

But I think you're right and I'm wrong in broad brushing an entire group - it isn't necessarily hate speech, maybe hateful though. Perhaps it depends on the context.

Except that they won't.

Not for generations, AND even then the current plan is to keep importing new unassimilated immigrants.

Except that is a common canard - certain immigrants (insert ethnic/religious group of your choice) "won't assimilate". And that is the sort of broadbrushing that leads to hate. Assimilation rates vary according to country (not religion) of origin and the country they are going to. For example, studies have shown that Muslims in the US and Canada are one of the best assimilated groups, UK as well.

And if your point about Islam's homophobia is true, then it is not hateful to discuss it.

Indeed, it become irresponsible to NOT discuss it.

And your concerns about Christians is a complete REd Herring which has nothing to do with the topic.

No, it is not hateful to discuss it, and no, talking about the Christian faith in relation to homophobia is as much to do with the topic as talking about the Muslim faith (particularly when you look at the Pew research). When you say that it's a red herring then the question comes up are you as much concerned for homosexual rights as you are for attacking Islam?

But I agree, none of that is hate speech but how it is discussed determines on whether it's hateful wouldn't you say?

1. Tell the girls of Rotherham how well the UK immigrants have assimilated. AND you did not address the fact that the constant stream of NEW immigrants will, of course, be a constant part of the population.

2. I'm glad you agree that talking about the truth of Islamic Homophobia is not hateful, for example.

2b. And that's the way it is used as a Red Herring. The topic is changed from the topic to whether the one dialog participant is a bad person.

 

[Correll]

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Innate or a choice? How can hate speech be innate? You choose to say something hateful. Hate speech that is not harmful to others? You mean like stuff you whisper into your pillow? I guess it makes sense to differentiate between speech that causes emotional pain and that which instigates millions of people being stuffed into ovens, but it's all designed to cause harm.

.

You missunderstood.

I am talking about the target of the speech rather than the speech. People being targeted for factors beyond their control is an entirely different matter than their being targeted for their own decisions.

No. Fear and loathing is fear and loathing. If people want to slap a label on something to justify their hate, they will. As you are doing. Being right or wrong about that label isn't the point, though I know of no instance where that label was right. Nothing said about a billion and a half people can be rational, and therefore is always wrong. The question of "choice" in religious and cultural affiliation is irrelevant, but FWIW, also completely wrong. You do not choose your cultural affiliations. There are many who believe sexual identity is a choice because they believe that fact can be weaponized and used to harm gay people, whom they fear and loathe.

We've morphed from discussing the relationship between hate speech and violence to a conversation about whether hate speech against a religion can be justified because religion is a matter of choice. No social criticism can be valid if it fails to recognize that all countries are different and that within each country a spectrum of people exists. Some are primitive and seek to drag us backwards. The 20% of Trump supporters who believe abolishing slavery was a bad idea, for example. Many are forward thinking. Most are in the mushy middle and don't care that much. I am highly critical of the culture which predominates in Muslim countries. I recognize the difference, however, between blanket condemnations and targeted criticism. None of this has anything to do with hate speech and the incitement of violence. That is, frankly, a subject of such absurd obviousness that I find it difficult to believe anyone could argue for the opposite. The scapegoating of minority groups and the horrible bloodbaths that have resulted from this are, I would imagine, as old as humanity itself.

If you import a significant population of that culture of which you are highly critical you are actively pursuing a policy of making the culture part of your culture.

"Targeted criticism" does not change that, and indeed, is mostly a distraction from that important point.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

What makes something "hate speech" is broadbrushing an entire group as opposed to criticizing specific actions. But again - I do not support legislating hate speech, since it is to some degree subjective, and free speech is an important right. For example, criticizing Islamic intolerance for homosexuality would not be hate speech imo. Calling Islam a pedophilic religion and it's followers pedophiles or a religion of rapists (hide your women and children!) would be hate speech that should be countered with facts, but attacking the issue of child marriages, forced marriages within certain Islamic countries would not be. The other aspect that I think marks hate speech is the willingness to uncritically accept and unspread unverified claims like conspiracy theories in order to tar an entire group. So are you attacking behavior or

Examples would be rape statistics and Muslims, where those that are critical of claims are labeled rape supporters - it's another way of protecting hatred is it not?

If you "criticize Islamic intolerance for homosexuality" you are "broadbrushing an entire group".

YOu are NOT criticizing specific actions.

BUT you are also being truthful.

And it is something you should consider before you import a significant population of that group into your nation.

Indeed, it would be failing your duty to consider the interests of your fellow citizens who are homosexual.

I have had online discussions with a liberal Dutch citizen who was gay and was NOT happy about the inhibiting effect that a sizable Islamic population had had on the regional gay night life.

To be clear, because they are afraid of violence if they are "out" having a good time.

I disagree. Anti-homosexual attitudes exist in many non-Muslim countries. People who immigrate must learn tolerance whatever they personally feel, and must follow new country's laws and norms. I think there is an issue if more people immigrate than can be adequately assimilated but that varies by country, and depends on that countries own resources. Christianity had to adjust and evolve and it is a recent and tenuous evolution that is still fragile (look at what is happening in Russia). So will other religions.

But I think you're right and I'm wrong in broad brushing an entire group - it isn't necessarily hate speech, maybe hateful though. Perhaps it depends on the context.

Except that they won't.

Not for generations, AND even then the current plan is to keep importing new unassimilated immigrants.

Except that is a common canard - certain immigrants (insert ethnic/religious group of your choice) "won't assimilate". And that is the sort of broadbrushing that leads to hate. Assimilation rates vary according to country (not religion) of origin and the country they are going to. For example, studies have shown that Muslims in the US and Canada are one of the best assimilated groups, UK as well.

And if your point about Islam's homophobia is true, then it is not hateful to discuss it.

Indeed, it become irresponsible to NOT discuss it.

And your concerns about Christians is a complete REd Herring which has nothing to do with the topic.

No, it is not hateful to discuss it, and no, talking about the Christian faith in relation to homophobia is as much to do with the topic as talking about the Muslim faith (particularly when you look at the Pew research). When you say that it's a red herring then the question comes up are you as much concerned for homosexual rights as you are for attacking Islam?

But I agree, none of that is hate speech but how it is discussed determines on whether it's hateful wouldn't you say?

1. Tell the girls of Rotherham how well the UK immigrants have assimilated. AND you did not address the fact that the constant stream of NEW immigrants will, of course, be a constant part of the population.

2. I'm glad you agree that talking about the truth of Islamic Homophobia is not hateful, for example.

2b. And that's the way it is used as a Red Herring. The topic is changed from the topic to whether the one dialog participant is a bad person.

2b The topic is hate speech. Christian homophobia is no different to Muslim homophobia so why would you want to discuss one in isolation to the other? Both are negative and, in both cases the expression of that hatred has led to killings. Neither can be a red herring and the only reason for rejecting either would be ignorance or having an agenda.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

So is it not hate speech if its aimed at muslims ?

What OTHER totalitarian, anti-humanist ideology do you consider the criticism thereof to be "hate speech", eh? Is it "hate speech" to criticize Westboro Baptist whose views ALMOST rise to the level of hatred for gays as expressed by the average Muslim? Is it "hate speech" to criticize Nazis for their views on Jews that match those of the majority of Muslims living in the Middle East? Heck, for that matter, is it "hate speech" to mock hillbillies for marrying their cousins when that is common practice in Islam?

Obviously, you have chosen Islam as the one ideology that cannot be criticized, and share much with Muslims at that, since the overwhelming majority consider their ideology to be above reproach -- so much so that they support killing apostates -- but what is it about this specific totalitarian ideology that attracts you so?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

2b The topic is hate speech. Christian homophobia is no different to Muslim homophobia so why would you want to discuss one in isolation to the other? Both are negative and, in both cases the expression of that hatred has led to killings. Neither can be a red herring and the only reason for rejecting either would be ignorance or having an agenda.

Actually, it is quite different, both in terms of prevalence as well as magnitude, but a person has to be willing to see the differences.

There is an absolutely enormous difference between rejecting gay marriage and supporting the killing of gay people and there is an enormous difference in the percentages vis a vis the two religions who hold similar beliefs. Those who have predetermined that they absolutely MUST defend Islam are the ones with the agenda, here, because equating attitudes that are so common as to be defining in one with attitudes that are relatively rare in the other represents an intentionally false equivalence geared towards the needs of the apologia rather than any sort of honest and intelligent examination.

 

[Correll]

If you "criticize Islamic intolerance for homosexuality" you are "broadbrushing an entire group".

YOu are NOT criticizing specific actions.

BUT you are also being truthful.

And it is something you should consider before you import a significant population of that group into your nation.

Indeed, it would be failing your duty to consider the interests of your fellow citizens who are homosexual.

I have had online discussions with a liberal Dutch citizen who was gay and was NOT happy about the inhibiting effect that a sizable Islamic population had had on the regional gay night life.

To be clear, because they are afraid of violence if they are "out" having a good time.

I disagree. Anti-homosexual attitudes exist in many non-Muslim countries. People who immigrate must learn tolerance whatever they personally feel, and must follow new country's laws and norms. I think there is an issue if more people immigrate than can be adequately assimilated but that varies by country, and depends on that countries own resources. Christianity had to adjust and evolve and it is a recent and tenuous evolution that is still fragile (look at what is happening in Russia). So will other religions.

But I think you're right and I'm wrong in broad brushing an entire group - it isn't necessarily hate speech, maybe hateful though. Perhaps it depends on the context.

Except that they won't.

Not for generations, AND even then the current plan is to keep importing new unassimilated immigrants.

Except that is a common canard - certain immigrants (insert ethnic/religious group of your choice) "won't assimilate". And that is the sort of broadbrushing that leads to hate. Assimilation rates vary according to country (not religion) of origin and the country they are going to. For example, studies have shown that Muslims in the US and Canada are one of the best assimilated groups, UK as well.

And if your point about Islam's homophobia is true, then it is not hateful to discuss it.

Indeed, it become irresponsible to NOT discuss it.

And your concerns about Christians is a complete REd Herring which has nothing to do with the topic.

No, it is not hateful to discuss it, and no, talking about the Christian faith in relation to homophobia is as much to do with the topic as talking about the Muslim faith (particularly when you look at the Pew research). When you say that it's a red herring then the question comes up are you as much concerned for homosexual rights as you are for attacking Islam?

But I agree, none of that is hate speech but how it is discussed determines on whether it's hateful wouldn't you say?

1. Tell the girls of Rotherham how well the UK immigrants have assimilated. AND you did not address the fact that the constant stream of NEW immigrants will, of course, be a constant part of the population.

2. I'm glad you agree that talking about the truth of Islamic Homophobia is not hateful, for example.

2b. And that's the way it is used as a Red Herring. The topic is changed from the topic to whether the one dialog participant is a bad person.

2b The topic is hate speech. Christian homophobia is no different to Muslim homophobia so why would you want to discuss one in isolation to the other? Both are negative and, in both cases the expression of that hatred has led to killings. Neither can be a red herring and the only reason for rejecting either would be ignorance or having an agenda.

Because people like you are bringing up "Christian homophobia" to deflect from, distract from, and defend Islamic Homophobia.

As part of YOUR agenda.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

2b The topic is hate speech. Christian homophobia is no different to Muslim homophobia so why would you want to discuss one in isolation to the other? Both are negative and, in both cases the expression of that hatred has led to killings. Neither can be a red herring and the only reason for rejecting either would be ignorance or having an agenda.

Actually, it is quite different, both in terms of prevalence as well as magnitude, but a person has to be willing to see the differences.

There is an absolutely enormous difference between rejecting gay marriage and supporting the killing of gay people and there is an enormous difference in the percentages vis a vis the two religions who hold similar beliefs. Those who have predetermined that they absolutely MUST defend Islam are the ones with the agenda, here, because equating attitudes that are so common as to be defining in one with attitudes that are relatively rare in the other represents an intentionally false equivalence geared towards the needs of the apologia rather than any sort of honest and intelligent examination.

You would need to quantify your assertions to have credibility.
As it stands you seem to be saying that Muslim homophobia is hate speech but Christian homophobia isnt, primarily because it is less widespread. I believe that both are hate speech and would have thought that the evidence supports that overwhelmingly.