Does hate speech incite you to hatred?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I find myself in agreement with your standpoint, with respect to the following comment:

I’m not sure about you, but if anything it’s the contrary—hate speech repulses me. I am certainly not “incited” to hatred and discrimination upon hearing it, and if anything, I am incited in the exact opposite direction.

Also, having been the victim of the frankly draconian manner in which our legal system deals with those accused of hate speech (which is to demand they prove themselves innocent, rather than have any actual evidence presented to condemn them), I am all too aware that there are massive flaws in our system of laws relating to these matters.

However, the flaws only seem to touch those who are innocent. The worst the criminal justice system has to offer does not appear to affect those who are actually guilty of legitimate hate speech, nearly as often as it does those who would strike down a racist, or any kind of phobic, soon as look at them. I know you and I differ on the following point, but it is my belief that the phobics, the haters, these people need driving off the British Isles, into the swirling currents surrounding it, and bloody well machine gunning. But writing law so lazily that a person who has not a hateful bone in their body, can be successfully accused or convicted of hate speech, does not actually promote unity, it merely deliberately drives a wedge between elements within a community, risks alienating people who actually advocate for unity between the people, against the might of government, and by so doing prevents the ultimate downfall of the unacceptable hierarchy which currently controls our cities, our nation, the world we live on and what goes on there.

The laws to which you are referring, have, deliberately I believe, been designed to damage the cause of unity between the people of Britain, have made it impossible for some communities to actually gel together for their collective benefit, have made it impossible for trust to flourish in the places where it is most needed, while totally failing to combat the rise of the militant far right, and their apologists.

The situation as it stands is untenable.

a reply to: schuyler

. If someone says, "You know, black crime is really most of it," that's hate speech, but if a leader of the Black community suggests "whitey" ought to be terminated, that's okay.

First off someone said " Black" crime is really most of it, hardly any Black ppl I know will say that's hate speech, they will point out that it is BS, and show you how you are wrong..in other words unpopular speech.

You can find any random person and stick a mic in their face and they utter some racist crap, that however do not make them any kind of leader in any of our communities, anymore than David Duke represents white ppl,
And whitey?? seriously that's waaay too anachronistic , along with honkie, that just sound too 70ish...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Freedom of speech is FAR more important than hate speech. In other words, freedom of speech is infinitely more valuable than censorship to silence the opinions of those who may not agree with you.

If people are so easily influenced by what someone else says to cause them to go out and take action against their better judgement and against their conscience then perhaps there's a bigger problem with these same people.

BTW...I flagged and stared this OP. And, no, I don't care if my government sees me S&F the OP.

"The most self-absorbed people display an ironic pension for the smallest minds and the largest mouths."
- A. Matthews

Of course it does. That's how Hitler did what he did.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

It appears censorship is more likely to contribute to hate crime than free speech. I would argue that nothing incites hatred more than the suppression of hatred, forced into the underground where it festers, far away from the eyes and ears of reasonable people, whom are denied the right to hear and thus know what hatreds are being promoted. And because hate speech is illegal, so to is its analysis and refutation, and so to is its defeat and ridicule in public debate.

I don't hate what you said there, I just disagree with it.

Have you ever hated something or somone? Did you practice prudence over action and not do anything about it? I have, and here are the results. It died. It took awhile, but it died. When you snuff out the thought of hatred before it turns into action, it takes on a different form. It elevates you above the frey. It doesn't make you better than the haters, it just makes you different. You can channel that hate into understanding. You can now understand why people choose to stay on that level. It's because that level is easier. It's the path of least resistance. Knee jerk reactions are always going to be easier than thought out responses, and when was the last time you heard of a knee jerk reaction to something dealing with love? It doesn't happen, but it does with hatred.

I don't agree with the notion that you have to hear different types of hatred to know what's going on in the world so you can make informed decisions on how to counter them. I know the basics of what's going on out there, I have no need for the specifics. Hatred is hatred, I don't need to know from where it comes. It doesn't matter anyway. Not on this level, at least.

I also don't agree with the notion that you can regulate what people say in order to have a more peaceful society. That's like believing you can bomb the middle east radicals out of existance and the problem is solved. You can't kill an ideology. You can't kill off a thought process. I undertsand why people try........the path of least resistance.........but you need societal changes if you want peace. You need thought out responses. This is what the framers of the constitution, for example, did in response to the British. They gave careful thought as to how to form a new government. For lack of a better way of describing it, they made a societal change that they felt was a better way to live than the one they came from. And they didn't do it with hatred. At least not on the constitutional level.


And for the record, to put this all into a recent frame of reference, I tried hate based speech once. I did it here. I got it off my chest. You know what it accomplished? Not a damn thing. The only thing it did was put up walls. It also served notice that I didn't really understand too much about what I was personally going through at the time.

We don't need more walls in this world. We need more understanding.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


You seem to post the same or similar sort of question every few weeks? I said the last time you posted that freedom of speech is fine and dandy, I agree with freedom of speech. it's how and where that speech is used by others to incite hate, is where it can all goes crazy. You then went into a rant about magic and how words are just that, words, not magical incantations. I postulated that words can and do lead to actions, just go and listen to Hitler's speech's leading up to WW2, how he incited hatred amongst his fellow Germans against the Jews. It's where those words are said and how they're used that can be the problem.
Also, your post is incorrect, freedom of speech and religion was part and parcel of Weimar. Link
The term hate speech was first used by communist countries. link

A quote from the site I've linked to.

Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.

You tried to say that words and people are two separate things last time, which they are not, humans and words go hand in hand, without us, we wouldn't have words. Humans have emotions and use words to express them, which in turn can, and do effect the people around them emotionally, good or bad.

Of all the weapons of destruction that man could invent, the most terrible-and the most powerful-was the word. Daggers and spears left traces of blood; arrows could be seen at a distance. Poisons were detected in the end and avoided. But the word managed to destroy without leaving clues.
Paulo Coelho.

a reply to: Kurokage

You seem to post the same or similar sort of question every few weeks? I said the last time you posted that freedom of speech is fine and dandy, I agree with freedom of speech. it's how and where that speech is used by others to incite hate, is where it can all goes crazy. You then went into a rant about magic and how words are just that, words, not magical incantations. I postulated that words can and do lead to actions, just go and listen to Hitler's speech's leading up to WW2, how he incited hatred amongst his fellow Germans against the Jews. It's where those words are said and how they're used that can be the problem.

And I refuted everyone of your claims last time.

Also, your post is incorrect, freedom of speech and religion was part and parcel of Weimar. Link
The term hate speech was first used by communist countries. link

I said Weimar Germany had modern hate speech laws, not that they were the first.

You tried to say that words and people are two separate things last time, which they are not, humans and words go hand in hand, without us, we wouldn't have words. Humans have emotions and use words to express them, which in turn can, and do effect the people around them emotionally, good or bad.

People and words are two separate things as evidenced by any standard of measure.

Of all the weapons of destruction that man could invent, the most terrible-and the most powerful-was the word. Daggers and spears left traces of blood; arrows could be seen at a distance. Poisons were detected in the end and avoided. But the word managed to destroy without leaving clues.
Paulo Coelho.

Try your words on the battlefield and see how long you last.

a reply to: Taupin Desciple

I don't agree with the notion that you have to hear different types of hatred to know what's going on in the world so you can make informed decisions on how to counter them. I know the basics of what's going on out there, I have no need for the specifics. Hatred is hatred, I don't need to know from where it comes. It doesn't matter anyway. Not on this level, at least.

If you were a jewish person you wouldn't want to know who the Nazis in the room were?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


You never reputed anything you stopped posting!!

And it is also strange that, despite the modern and stringent hate speech laws and censorship of hatred in Weimar Germany, Nazism and genocide was able to flourish and take power there.

Hate speech laws weren't introduced till after the WW2, you tried to make out that the laws were there before Nazism.

People and words are two separate things as evidenced by any standard of measure.

Remove the people and there are no words to be uttered, they are linked!!

Try your words on the battlefield and see how long you last.

It's called command and without orders, as an example the soliders would have no goal or postion to take.

Does hate speech incite you to hatred?

Nope. Disgust would be the right word.

originally posted by: Kurokage

You never reputed anything you stopped posting!!

I made my arguments, all of which you dismissed.

Hate speech laws weren't introduced till after the WW2, you tried to make out that the laws were there before Nazism.

They didn't call them hate speech laws, but they were hate speech laws by todays standards.

Weimar Criminal Code

1. Incitement to Class Struggle (Paragraph 130, Criminal Code)

Whoever publicly incites different classes of the population to violent
actions against one another in a way that jeopardises the public peace
will be punished with a fine of 600 marks or with a prison term of up to
two years.

2. Religious Insult (Paragraph 166, Criminal Code):

Whoever blasphemes God in that lie causes annoyance in public by
expressions of abuse, or whoever publicly insults one of the Christian
churches or another existing religious society with rights of
corporation in the federal jurisdiction, its institutions, or customs;
likewise whoever commits insulting mischief in a church or in another
specific place that is specified for religious gatherings, will be
punished with a prison term of up to three years.

3. Insult (Paragraphs 185-187, 189, 190, 192-196, Criminal Code):

(186) Whoever asserts or spreads a fact in relation to another person
that serves to make the other contemptible or demeaned in the public
view will, if this fact is not demonstrably true, be punished with a
fine or with arrest or with prison up to one year, and, if this insult
is done publicly, or through the .spread of literature, pictures, or
representations, with a Vine or prison term of up to two years.

(187) Whoever against his better knowledge asserts or spread,.,; a fact
in relation to another person that makes him contemptible in the public
view or that serves to threaten his credit will be punished with prison
for a term of up to two years on account of defamatory insult, or if the
defamation is done publicly or through the spreading of literature,
pictures, or representations, with prison for not under one month. If
extenuating circumstances are present, the penalty can be reduced to one
day in prison or a fine.

(189) Whoever insults the memory of a deceased individual in that lie
asserts or spreads an untrue fact, which would have served to make the
deceased contemptible or demeaned in the public view in his lifetime,
will be punished with imprisonment of up to six months. If extenuating
circumstances are present, this can be reduced to a fine. Prosecution
occurs only upon request of the parents, the children, or the spouse of
the deceased.

(193) Rebukeful judgments of scientific, artistic, or occupational
performance, as well as utterances that are made for the execution or
defense of rights or for the protection of legitimate interests, as well
as reproaches and reprimands of superiors against their subordinates,
employment reports, or judgments on the part of a civil servant and
similar cases are only, punishable when the presence of an insult arises
from the form of the expression or from the circumstances under which it
occurred.



Levitt, Cyril. , "What Are the Lessons for the Modern Democracies" in
"Under the Shadow of Weimar: Democracy, Law, and Racial Incitement in
Six Countries," Louis Greenspan and Cyril Levitt, Eds. Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers, 1993, pg. 16-17

There is, in fact, little historical basis to the
claim that the Weimar Republic was a bastion of
free speech, tragically overwhelmed by unfettered
Nazi agitation. Paragraph 166 of the Weimar
Criminal Code stated ‘whoever publicly insults
one of the Christian churches or another existing
religious society with rights of corporation in the
federal jurisdiction, its institutions, or customs
… will be punished with a prison term of up to
three years’ (emphasis added).21 This included
hate speech against Jews, and there were plenty
of such convictions under Paragraph 166 and
other provisions. For example, the oft-prosecuted
Nazi publisher Julius Streicher (author of the
anti-Semitic weekly newspaper Der Sturmer and
a contemptible and marginal individual widely
hated by his own party colleagues), was handed a
two-month prison sentence in 1929 for ‘libelling
the Jewish religion under Paragraph 166 of
the Weimar Penal Code.’ As a result of the jail
sentence, ‘Streicher’s racial views received more
publicity than if Der Sturmer had been allowed
to publish unchallenged … within weeks of the
verdict, the Nazi Party tripled its 1927 vote in the
Thuringian Landtag elections’—an outcome that
should give pause to any aspiring censors.

The Trouble with Religious Hatred Laws

Remove the people and there are no words to be uttered, they are linked!!

No one said otherwise.

It's called command and without orders, as an example the soliders would have no goal or postion to take.

Try it out in a fight.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

At least as far as it goes for me.... No, I prefer an upfront honest racist/hate filled bigot over someone that hides everything but acts pleasant to my face. Most words don't bother me as long as there is not an act that goes along with the speech.


But I am weird..

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I made my arguments, all of which you dismissed.

You stopped responding to anyone in your previous thread and refused to read all the links I provided that proved your argument was wrong.

they didn't call them hate speech laws, but they were hate speech laws by todays standards.

blaspheme Laws have been around for has long as people have believed in a god and used by many nations. You made a specific reference to Weimar and "Hate Speech" and Nazism which was wrong, it was the soviet union and it's allies not the west who wanted to introduce hate speech laws (it's obviously the same as last time, you don't read any links to prove you are wrong), no if's and's or but's about it!

No one said otherwise.

In your last thread you claimed words were just words and tried to separate them from people, which i said was impossible as people are emotional and respond to words in different ways, you then tried to make out that people are just superstitious when it comes to words.

Try it out in a fight.

Is that an offer, or are you being sarcastic. Are my words causing an emotional response maybe?
In the majority of battles, wars are fought on the orders of others. There are orders that are taught as standard to the U.S. military.
Link.

Again, like I said before, I agree with freedom of speech but it does have some gray areas, but you seem to see words as something separate from speech or the emotion words can create.

a reply to: Kurokage

You stopped responding to anyone in your previous thread and refused to read all the links I provided that proved your argument was wrong.

Sorry but a link isn't proof of anything, just like the link you posted in this thread.

blaspheme Laws have been around for has long as people have believed in a god and used by many nations. You made a specific reference to Weimar and "Hate Speech" and Nazism which was wrong, it was the soviet union and it's allies not the west who wanted to introduce hate speech laws (it's obviously the same as last time, you don't read any links to prove you are wrong), no if's and's or but's about it!

It's not a "blaspheme law", it's a religious insult law. Julius Streicher, author of the anti-Semitic weekly newspaper Der Sturmer, was handed a two-month prison sentence in 1929 for ‘libelling the Jewish religion under Paragraph 166 of the Weimar Penal Code’. Have you read any Der Sturmer material? Unless you're willing to say anti-semitism and spreading malicious lies about jews for propaganda purposes isn't hate speech, you're completely wrong.

In your last thread you claimed words were just words and tried to separate them from people, which i said was impossible as people are emotional and respond to words in different ways, you then tried to make out that people are just superstitious when it comes to words.

That is a complete misrepresentation of my views. You can quote me or you can continue to fight your straw men.

Is that an offer, or are you being sarcastic. Are my words causing an emotional response maybe?
In the majority of battles, wars are fought on the orders of others. There are orders that are taught as standard to the U.S. military.

You keep implying words are more powerful than weapons, but are unwilling to prove it. We could do a thousand and one experiments that prove the complete opposite.

Again, like I said before, I agree with freedom of speech but...

You can stop right there. Everything before the "but" is a complete lie. You do not agree with free speech.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Sorry but a link isn't proof of anything, just like the link you posted in this thread.

A link is posted to back up claims made in a post, just puting comments or edits of texts that back up your claims in a quote box is no proof either.

It's not a "blaspheme law", it's a religious insult law.

Yet in the first sentence of said law.......

Whoever blasphemes God in that lie causes annoyance in public by

Julius Streicher was prosecuted under this law, which is a blaspheme law, at the time Germany had both Catholics and protestants, this law was "to keep the peace" between both parties. The term hate speech came a lot later and was introduced by the soviets......

the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.

This is when Hate speech was introduced into law, it was the universal Declaration of Human Rights. Look it up because posting a link is useless to you as it proves you wrong.

That is a complete misrepresentation of my views. You can quote me or you can continue to fight your straw men.

And here is a quote.....

How do they affect humans if they have no substance?

A human is an object. So words can affect objects. That's called sorcery.

Your emotions are a product and result of your biology, your chemistry, not words.

You tried to say that words don't and can't affect people in your last thread, they do. Words are a reflection of peoples thoughts and beliefs, words can be used as a weapon and often are.

a reply to: Kurokage

Yet in the first sentence of said law.......

Julius Streicher was prosecuted under this law, which is a blaspheme law, at the time Germany had both Catholics and protestants, this law was "to keep the peace" between both parties. The term hate speech came a lot later and was introduced by the soviets......

It's not a "blaspheme law", as evidenced by the title of the paragraph, "Religious Insult".

You suspiciously left out the rest of the law:

...or whoever publicly insults one of the Christian
churches or another existing religious society with rights of
corporation in the federal jurisdiction, its institutions, or customs;
likewise whoever commits insulting mischief in a church or in another
specific place that is specified for religious gatherings

I wonder why you left that out?

This is when Hate speech was introduced into law, it was the universal Declaration of Human Rights. Look it up because posting a link is useless to you as it proves you wrong.

You're confusing international law with the laws of Weimar Germany, proving yourself wrong once again.

And here is a quote.....

All of them are true.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

it's not a "blaspheme law", as evidenced by the title of the paragraph, "Religious Insult".

Yet the first line states....

Whoever blasphemes God

You then state.....

They didn't call them hate speech laws, but they were hate speech laws by todays standards.

also in your OP you stated

And it is also strange that, despite the modern and stringent hate speech laws and censorship of hatred in Weimar Germany, Nazism and genocide was able to flourish and take power there.

You are trying very badly to take the Weimar criminal code out of context and subvert it to your way of thinking which is wrong. You mention nothing about the context in which it was drawn up or the year it was drawn up. Hate speech laws came a lot later.
You are trying to infer that the Weimar laws could some how have stoped the Nazis! Even though the Nazi party where already in government when they started spewing there hatred, the Weimar laws were written up at a time of the end of the 2nd Reich during much religious and political turmoil.

Elections for the national assembly were duly held on January 19. The social revolution had been defeated, and the way was clear for a democratic republic to preserve the economic order and the military values of imperial Germany. Ebert and Hindenburg, the two presidents of the Weimar Republic, were also the partners who brought it into existence.

You're confusing international law with the laws of Weimar Germany, proving yourself wrong once again.

I'm proving that I'm right and showing you that the term "hate speech laws" were introduced by the Soviets with Nazism used as a cover and have nothing to do with the Weimar criminal code, again is an old quote for you.....

the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.

Again I don't need to go on about how words can be used as weapons as there are many papers written on this subject.

Link.

One can estimate the likelihood that speech will spark violence in any given situation using just these five criteria: the speaker, the audience, the speech itself, the social and historical context, and the means of dissemination.

a reply to: Kurokage

Yet the first line states....

Again, you suspiciously dismissed the other lines.

I'm proving that I'm right and showing you that the term "hate speech laws" were introduced by the Soviets with Nazism used as a cover and have nothing to do with the Weimar criminal code, again is an old quote for you.....

You're wrong. You're proving that you misrepresent what I said, and that you dismiss evidence to the contrary. That's all you can do and all you have done.

Again I don't need to go on about how words can be used as weapons as there are many papers written on this subject.

Name one person harmed, injured, or killed by a word. You're speaking superstitious nonsense.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Again, you suspiciously dismissed the other lines.

And again you say nothing about the first line stating Blaspheme, You kinda like skipping over that bit!!

You're wrong. You're proving that you misrepresent what I said, and that you dismiss evidence to the contrary. That's all you can do and all you have done.

I'm proving that you turn and twist things to your perspective and view. Ignoring facts and truth that differ from your opinion.

Name one person harmed, injured, or killed by a word. You're speaking superstitious nonsense.

You're the one speaking nonsense and are caught up on saying anyone who disagrees with you is superstitious, you keep trying to separate words form emotion, you can't. Humans are an emotional creatures and use words to express feelings, moods, and everything else humans do/see/feel.
How about Nazi speeches and propagandists referring to Jews as vermin and pests, how about the Hutu referring to Tutsi people as cockroaches, How about Slobodan Milosevic describing Muslims as black crows. In each case, such speech is a precursor to mass violence, especially violence against defenceless civilian populations. The list goes on and your denial of such acts and how people use words to incite hatred and violence shows just how badly you cling to such a poor argument.

Here's a link if you dare click it, you might find it opens you mind a little.........

Link.