Hate Speech Isn't Real | Change My Mind - Louder with Crowder - General

[media]https://youtu.be/Q0hPd2gMlGw[/media] Actually kind of nice how the conversation with the second lady started and then went.

They didn't really spend all that much time discussing hate speech at all, which would at least be sort of interesting, the whole video was just boring-ass political small talk

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52835128]They didn't really spend all that much time discussing hate speech at all, which would at least be sort of interesting, the whole video was just boring-ass political small talk[/QUOTE] Sadly that is true. But hey, going from "I think you might represent white privilege" to just a normal conversation is a hell of a 180.

Why is Crowder whining about judicial decisions made by judges or juries? I thought he was the one about personal responsibility, if you get found guilty for hate speech then its your and your defense's fault, no one else's, that's how the law works, stop trying to get out of it by crying on your platform.

it isn't an open dialogue where both parties are willing to hear each others' points of views if one party is only doing it to get advertisement revenue and to create sick content for the viewers of their radio show

[QUOTE=Tudd;52835180]Sadly that is true. But hey, going from "I think you might represent white privilege" to just a normal conversation is a hell of a 180.[/QUOTE] So you don't even think this video really fulfills its actual purpose (its namesake) then why did you post it?

Does Crowder understand that the US doesn't even really have unlimited free speech? In America, I couldn't seriously say "I want to kill the President," but I could seriously say "Kill All Jews." Like saying "FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT" is all good and all, but if you agree with total, unrestricted freedom of speech than any threats wouldn't be discriminated under the law. Hate speech laws basically just extend those laws which govern threatening behaviour to include groups rather than just individuals.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52835292]So you don't even think this video really fulfills its actual purpose (its namesake) then why did you post it?[/QUOTE] It is still interesting in how the conversation played out and people actually having a cordial conversation despite the beginning being very stand-offish. I think some people could learn from that.

Tudd I'm going to find out where you live and kick your fucking ass [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] dw guys I can't be banned because hate speech isn't real [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Threatening another member is completely unacceptable. Last Warning, Next is a Perma" - UncleJimmema))[/highlight] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Threatening another member is completely unacceptable. Last Warning, Next is a Perma" - UncleJimmema))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Tudd;52835426]It is still interesting in how the conversation played out and people actually having a cordial conversation despite the beginning being very stand-offish. I think some people could learn from that.[/QUOTE] tudd you are becoming a parody of yourself

drive-by shitposting strikes again

Right at the very start of the video, "There is no legal definition of hate speech"... Isn't that just straight up false?

[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;52835635]Right at the very start of the video, "There is no legal definition of hate speech"... Isn't that just straight up false?[/QUOTE] [quote]In June 2017, the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the registration of trademarks that are "racially disparaging". Justice Samuel Alito writes: Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).[9] Justice Anthony Kennedy also writes: A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.[9] Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.[/quote] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States[/url]

[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;52835635]Right at the very start of the video, "There is no legal definition of hate speech"... Isn't that just straight up false?[/QUOTE] Not in the US, there is elsewhere. It's a misleading statement.

[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;52835635]Right at the very start of the video, "There is no legal definition of hate speech"... Isn't that just straight up false?[/QUOTE] In the US, not entirely. It's another example of Crowder misrepresenting something pretty hard. The issue is it's not a concept you can have one easy definition for. It changes on the state level too whether it has to do with protected classes or not. The one commonality is direct threats aren't protected. Although, unless there's "imminent lawless action", you can't really get in trouble for it. [QUOTE=Tudd;52835644][URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States[/URL][/QUOTE] That doesn't really have anything to do with what you're arguing here. That verdict was there's no exceptions for hate speech not that there's no definition of hate speech.

I think that just because someone thinks hate speech exists doesn't necessitate that they can even think of a realistic situation where it applies, it simply means that you are open to the possibility of being punished for being hateful. I feel like the right has ulterior motives for arguing against hate speech laws, to be completely closed off from the mere possibility is plain and simple intellectual dishonesty.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52835689]I think that just because someone thinks hate speech exists doesn't necessitate that they can even think of a realistic situation where it applies, it simply means that you are open to the possibility of being punished for being hateful. I feel like the right has ulterior motives for arguing against hate speech laws, to be completely closed off from the mere possibility is plain and simple intellectual dishonesty.[/QUOTE] Speaking as someone who opposes hate speech laws (I genuinely don't think someone should ever face a penalty in either money or time by the state just for saying something, even if it's appalling) I find it difficult to find common ground with the conservatives and right-wingers who push against similar laws or notions because in my experience, as a generalization, they seem only to care about freedom of speech when it's potentially advantageous to them and at best ignore, at worst discourage freedom of expression for people they find inconvenient.

[QUOTE=Carlito;52835491]Tudd I'm going to find out where you live and kick your fucking ass [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] dw guys I can't be banned because hate speech isn't real [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Threatening another member is completely unacceptable. Last Warning, Next is a Perma" - UncleJimmema))[/highlight] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Threatening another member is completely unacceptable. Last Warning, Next is a Perma" - UncleJimmema))[/highlight][/QUOTE] You died for our sins.

Nothing shows how superior your opinions are like wearing a full bodysuit, and carrying a sign with inflammatory crap on it to provoque people, like you're Bruce Willis in Die Hard 3. Is Crowder tired of the criticism and want people to think he went insane to make it stop?

i swear to fucking god i dont know why the equivalent of acting like a kid who stole cookies from the jar only to say you wanted to look at them what with the whole "oh i just think its interesting!" bullshit is still somehow keeping you unbanned

This is just wrong and completely disappointing, my grandfather among many others didn't fight the Nazis so this little shit and others like him could take their place.

[QUOTE=portalcrazy;52835859]i swear to fucking god i dont know why the equivalent of acting like a kid who stole cookies from the jar only to say you wanted to look at them what with the whole "oh i just think its interesting!" bullshit is still somehow keeping you unbanned[/QUOTE] I think he's got dirt on Garry and his mods

I love how all these threads are just a video about some borderline racist nazi fuckwipe and you just justify it with some "sorry I have to write this@ line below the video. *hate speech isn't real* "It's nice how the conversation with one of the women there went" What's next? *video of black man getting cussed at* "I was really impressed with the non-hate-speech group's use of dialectical impressionist literature in their dictionary" *video of a man calling for a reduction of women's rights* "Ah yes, this is quite the example of a moral quandary, I do wonder what you guys think" *video of some basket care right wing nutjob explaining the need for voting reform to disproportionately target minorities and poor people* "He truly brings up some valid points, what do you guys think" As for the video itself Yeah no, hate speech is real, and you don't need to look further than your own president to see that. When he mocked a disabled reporter When he called for a ban of muslims entering the US When he didn't condemn the nazis yelling "Jews will not replace us" for several days but he took taking an hour to go on twitter and condemn black and white athletes expressing their rights

[QUOTE=portalcrazy;52835859]i swear to fucking god i dont know why the equivalent of acting like a kid who stole cookies from the jar only to say you wanted to look at them what with the whole "oh i just think its interesting!" bullshit is still somehow keeping you unbanned[/QUOTE] Maybe going to the FP discord gives you immunity

[QUOTE=Carlito;52835491]Tudd I'm going to find out where you live and kick your fucking ass dw guys I can't be banned because hate speech isn't real[/QUOTE] Unfortunately for you, threats and incitement to violence are real. Way to go, champ.

Tudd "I'm not altright, [I]buuuuuuuuut[/I]" Fudders. Tudd "I just thought it was interesting" Fudders. Tudd "I watch Steven Crowder ironically" Fudders. Tudd "Why are you all making fun of me?" Fudders. Tudd "How dare you not take me seriously" Fudders. Tudd "I'm actually a really nice guy in real life" Fudders. Tudd "My humongous dick forces me to manspread" Fudders. Tudd "Why don't you block me ? HOW DARE YOU BLOCK ME" Fudders. Tudd "Blacks have lower IQ distribution than whites, here's a chart" Fudders. Tudd "I frequently admit to my bullshit on discord and expect it not to leak" Fudders. Tudd "I bought this $40 trump teddybear as a joke guys, I got you all, you're all mad" Fudders. Tudd "Pizzagate is totally false but democrats probably have pedophile rings anyway so it doesn't matter" Fudders. Tudd "I don't criticize Trump because I want to join the army and don't want to be scrutinized, but I still browse T_D and watch Crowder" Fudders. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Not a Tudd thread" - UncleJimmema))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52835988] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Not a Tudd thread" - UncleJimmema))[/highlight][/QUOTE] These don't even rhyme oh my god you suck [QUOTE=Raidyr;52835709] they seem only to care about freedom of speech when it's potentially advantageous to them and at best ignore, at worst discourage freedom of expression for people they find inconvenient.[/QUOTE] Tbh its sad but a lot of right wingers really are no different than SJW's in many ways, in that they only care when it benefits them

[QUOTE]There are SOME people out there who have no interest in a rational discussion[/QUOTE] I wouldn't want to either with some loon in a white suit on the street [QUOTE=portalcrazy;52835859]i swear to fucking god i dont know why the equivalent of acting like a kid who stole cookies from the jar only to say you wanted to look at them what with the whole "oh i just think its interesting!" bullshit is still somehow keeping you unbanned[/QUOTE] It's cheap entertainment, and it stops when you guys stop feeding him

Tudd is an invaluable asset in that we get to see exactly how the right wing propaganda works and spreads.

[QUOTE=Spacewizard;52836239]Tudd is an invaluable asset in that we get to see exactly how the right wing propaganda works and spreads.[/QUOTE] We also get to see how members of the community react when they actually have to [URL="http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/"]tolerate someone,[/URL] rather than conveniently coexist. On topic because I feel compelled because this is a discussion worth having, there are [I]lots[/I] of different standards of what Hate Speech is or isn't, and there are lots of positive reasons to have hate speech laws. Typically speaking, Hate Speech is not defined the way you think it is. Typically, hard H hard S Hate Speech is speech which incites others to violence, or encourages retaliatory violence. That is the legal standard in the US, typically accepted by most states and the Federal body. I encourage you all to go look up the individual statutes yourselves to garner a deeper understanding of the law. The problem is that since the inception of these laws, they've been spread thin, like too much toast with too little butter. That's why, for instance, that one band with the silly name was found not to have been engaging in Hate Speech. How could they have been inciting anyone to violence at all? Naturally, whenever dealing with a concept so broad and so abstract as hate speech or free speech or speech in general, there are lots of different ways to cash out those ideas. If I said, "Tudd is a limp wristed candy ass faggot," that would probably sound a lot like soft h soft s hate speech. It's speech that's hateful, and that's notionally right. But it's not really hard H hard S Hate Speech. Likewise, if I said, "I'm going to kill the president," no amount of hard F freedom of speech protects me, since it's a direct threat against the highest public office, although that's [I]not[/I] Hate Speech since it neither incites violence nor invites retaliation. The issue most conservatives, or Alt-Right-Skeptic-Nonsense-Peddles, or whatever you call them seem to have is the fact that Hate Speech charges are almost overwhelmingly inconsistent in their application. That is a problem. It undermines the integrity of the system and encourages people to be skeptical, even when the rules and laws exist to create a fairer and more just society, and to that effect seem pretty effective. If that happens, we end up where we are now, with otherwise reasonable people rowing against a system that for the most part works, but needs minor adjustments. At the very least, I know people who saw KKK leaders, lynch mob organizers, and the like sent to jail in the 60's, 70's, and even 80's under Hate Speech laws, because these people were openly and publicly discussing how blacks, jews and gays needed to be physically removed by any means neccessary. If we want to have a civil, functional society where every member contributes their best, then we cannot harbor or tolerate elements that, in no unclear terms, want to harm other members of that society. This may seem at odds with my previous defenses of so-called Nazis, but it's not. I don't believe anyone on any side should hit anyone, or firebomb anyone, or want to hang or shoot anyone. I apply that limitation to all actors, not just Nazis. If a card carrying Nazi could openly share their ideals without advocating for the injury or death of another person, I would willingly let them sit at the table, so to say. I certainly wouldn't agree with them, or accept their point of view in to my own set, but I wouldn't just arbitrarily blam bile in their face because of their identity. Which is the point, at the end of the day. That a person should be secure in their identity and beliefs, even if we might find them intolerable on a notional level, so long as those identities and beliefs do not violate certain things that are foundational to a civil society. [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52836712]We don't have to tolerate an intolerant person.[/QUOTE] Yeah, actually, we do. That's how tolerance works.