White Supremacist rams Car through Counter Protestors, Killing 1

Oops! That joke flopped.
I thought A Man For All Seasons was the movie of the month!
It's not!
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=51030

I wonder how long it will be before someone goes after this statue?

it is the pakistanis who hate hindus more than we hindus hate pakistan . above i have posted a chart of hindu percentage in pakistan before it was created in 1947 and after it was created .it is from a pakistani website known as haq's musings . look at the hindu percentage in 1941 census and the sharp drop in hindu population in the 1951 census which was the first census after pakistan was created .

where did all the hindus go ? the answer is that they were massacred , their women raped , and their children driven into slavery . the hindu population of pakistan is now almost extinct whereas it was sizable before pakistan was created . on the other hand muslims form a huge and growing part of india and their population is increasing day by day .

What happened to the latest protest in USA? Did that get ugly or does the riot squad routinely hammer off water cannons and capsicum spray?

Article 7:

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

My liberty ends where other's start. That's as simple as that. Freedom is never absolute!

This only condemns discrimination under the law, and "incitement" to same. It encompasses active incitement to violence, but not merely saying anything offensive. And it's a pretty far cry from this:

"Actually in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights hate speech is condemned and not included in the freedom of speech, and the counties who sign it are obliged to consider it a crime."

And, of course, I posted Article 19 earlier, which is explicitly about protecting speech. So, at minimum, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not simply condemn hate speech, but has two edicts in it that seem to at least nod at both sides of the debate. And even that's being too generous, because Article 19 is far, far less ambiguous than Article 7, and has even been formally clarified as not excluding things on the basis even/merely of being "deeply offensive."

Nobody disagrees with this, in fact, one of America's most famous jurists is often attributed with a similar quote (which, tellingly, used physical violence as an example). What they disagree with is the idea that your "liberty" extends around you like an aura within which even sufficiently negative sounds can be punished.

Nobody said otherwise.

The most important question I asked in the previous post, however, was the one about who decides what hate speech is. You've implied that people who say things like this don't deserve to breathe. You've said they're less than human and shouldn't have as many rights. Why can't someone, under your standard, consider that "incitement" to discrimination?

Which only begs the question as to who or what makes them think that "white culture" needs protecting - the implication here is that white people as a whole are being threatened by non-white people. It'd be one thing if it was about specific ethnicities or cultures that just so happen to consist of white people (e.g. the Irish or the Swedish) being targeted, but broadening the categorisation to white people in general (which ironically subsumes the already-existent "white" cultures) indicates that the conflict is more about racial difference than cultural difference. Extermination and/or enslavement are the most extreme solutions to this conflict since the obvious way to assure the prevalence of "white culture" is to make sure that non-white cultures either don't exist or don't pose a threat. Maybe the "white culture" types you mention are just acting out of confusion about a fear they don't understand, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned that they so easily end up supporting white supremacists who are actively working towards such dangerous goals.

This does come back to the assumption that all it takes for them to lose is for the rest of us to give them enough rope to hang themselves, but that hasn't exactly worked so well that far - Trump was a joke in the primaries but that didn't stop him, to say nothing of the various individuals whose worldviews may be obviously bad to reasonable types like you or I but that hasn't stopped them being linked and quoted on here (like that one user who kept posting Paul Joseph Watson videos). These are the kind of people who do seek out whatever they think counts as persecution, even if it's something as benign as an all-female Ghostbusters reboot. At least the strong opposition to the rallies is making them less and less sizeable or likely - the Boston one from the other day certainly seemed very insignificant in comparison to those who would protest it, though of course that could be twisted around by them anyway.

Yeah, even I'm aware that the "idea" of being racist is probably never going to disappear completely and that you can't always convince people otherwise - the compromise is that you don't allow the racists to have the power to act on their ideas. Physical violence is the extreme end of that, but that's only after attempting to reconfigure society in such a way to demonstrate that racism isn't good doesn't work out. By allowing Nazism or racism to persist in one guise or another (e.g. the "alt-right"), we as a people have allowed it to have a significant resurgence and it's going to take more effort to beat it back.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

"against any incitement to such discrimination"... If hate speech is not incitement to discrimination, I don't know what it is, so I can't see how is such a far cry.

And I'm making a difference between offensive or hatred! And that difference is very valuable to me.

To you, I can't say the same, because people on this forum have been asked to delete their messages after calling someone stupid (which is offensive but legal and you're defending my right to say it) but a message about religious hatred continues posted by a member with a past of posts of prejudice towards Muslims, and I'm not the only person here who complained about it.

I believe the right to offend is always more important than the right to be offended. But as I said above, "incitement to discrimination" is not the same thing as "offensive speech".

The legal definition of hate speech according to Merriam Webster is "speech that is intended to insult, offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait (as race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability)".

So, if I attacked ashdoc on the fact that he is indian, it's hate speech, and I should be banned from the forum.

If I attacked someone on their opinions saying they're "overpopulating the planet", for example, it belongs on the offense spectrum, and while I understand why it cannot be tolerated on a forum like this, I can't possibly understand why are we not having the same discussion when the same sentence is used to an entire religion!

I agree with all of this, but saying we should be "concerned" doesn't bear much resemblance to suggesting they all want to enslave/murder other races, which is what we were talking about.

It feels like, when someone's bad, nuance and accuracy about how they're bad is the first thing to go, as if their badness absolves the rest of us from having to make any more moral distinctions. Hey, they might not literally be Nazis, but they're still Bad People, so who cares whether or not we equate them with murderers? You know that joke about how everyone on the Internet is always calling everyone Hitler for any disagreement? Because we're apparently now talking about whether or not that's a good thing to do formally, as a society.

Sure it has. Nazism wields little to no political power.

Is it a significant resurgence? Or has it just gone from vanishingly small to just really, really small? Because it could triple and still have no meaningful political influence. Other than what we inadvertently lend to it with our reaction.

But yes, it'll take more effort to beat it back. But that's literally all we're going to need: effort. It's harder to sit there and calmly deconstruct any broken worldview, let alone a hateful or evil one. It's a lot easier to just throw a punch. But when we do that, we indicate we have no faith in our ideas. If they can't win as ideas, then we're just trying to slow an inevitable decline.

The hallmark of fascism is that it meets undesirable opinions with force. If our "solution" to hate speech is to punch it in the face, we're not fighting fascism: we're using it.

Incitement to discrimination under the law. Meaning, basically, an incitement to commit a crime, like harming someone. Are you saying that it's only "hate speech" if it does this?

Alright. What is that difference?

I'd probably issue a warning, but yes, that would not be allowed.

Because religions are ideologies, and races are not. I find the reference to population pretty base (and borderline), but the line we try to draw is between criticisms of people, and criticisms of ideas. That's been the standard as long as I remember, and it's held even when it was my own religion being criticized (which has happened quite a bit, by the way).

Spooky this dropping down on my feed right now. Has anyone read any of these?

https://www.bookwitty.com/reading_li...tesville-books