# I'm over #BLM **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 14, 2017, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824 "2017-10-14T15:43:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/61 "2017-10-15T09:46:08Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > I suppose that’s the rub. Non-violent resistance sometimes calls for protesting and action that’s outside of the bounds guaranteed under your constitution (and legal right). That’s why when people do it they often expect (and wait) to be arrested for their obstinate action. I’m not sure if the BLM were arrested (the article doesn’t say if they were forcefully removed or left voluntarily). > > Nonetheless, deplatforming the speaker through the use of “heckler’s veto” is a risk these protesters have chosen to take. I’m sure they feel that their message is important enough to risk arrest. > > Quite frankly, **that is** their risk to take; who can challenge that personal conviction? (of course we can examine/question it in some theoretical sense) I can. Because the message they’re sending, and _quite clearly,_ is that free speech is secondary to social justice, and should be suppressed for the sake of social justice. This is _fucking stupid_ on almost every conceivable level. It’s stupid on the concept level - the first people who suffer when you restrict free speech are the poor and marginalized. It’s stupid on the execution level - most people kind of get it when you deplatform Milo Yiannopolous, he’s literally just a high-profile troll (the human equivalent of the youtube comments section), but when you deplatform the ACLU or a fucking state legislator who has considerable power over your institution, you’re kind of screwing the pooch. It reflects incredibly badly on the movement as a whole, and increases the threat that these fuckos decide to mess with the public college system. > [@Murderface](#): > > I’ve always been over it. It’s truly a hate group. Man, fuck off, buddy. It’s because of morons like you that people see a post like the OP and immediately pattern-match it to “Oh look, a dumb conservative who hates black people is hating on black lives matters”. Case in point: > [@Chimera](#): > > Nobody really gives a shit what right wingers think of BLM. You guys are poisoned by your propaganda. So no, I don’t care what you think, no I’m not going to try to change your mind, no I’m not going to explain how you’ve been lied to by your own side. You won’t listen, and I’m not interested in what you have to say about it. My _god_ man, have you read _anything_ I’ve ever posted in the last 9 years? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/62 "2017-10-15T09:57:51Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > You are missing the big picture. …nope. I haven’t missed the big picture at all. I’ve given you the big picture. This handful of protesters is no threat to your democracy. Most of the people “recoiling” would have recoiled anyway. The big picture is that social change is happening right now. It isn’t just these protesters who want social change to happen. The President of the United States of America wants social change as well. And the President of the United States of America has the entire mechanism of the US government behind him in order to enact that change. Here’s the real big picture. The President has the power of the most mighty nation in the history of the world behind him, a propaganda machine that can reach millions, an “army” of “alt-right” keyboard warriors that push his message every hour of every day. Do you think the real threat to free speech and democracy is coming from a handful of people who made a really loud noise? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/63 "2017-10-15T11:06:53Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Nobody really gives a shit what right wingers think of BLM. You guys are poisoned by your propaganda. So no, I don’t care what you think, no I’m not going to try to change your mind, no I’m not going to explain how you’ve been lied to by your own side. You won’t listen, and I’m not interested in what you have to say about it. Nor do the slug-brains give a shit what you think. See #13. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/64 "2017-10-15T11:37:20Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I can. Because the message they’re sending, and _quite clearly,_ is that free speech is secondary to social justice, and should be suppressed for the sake of social justice. Well, of course they do. Because they are correct. Social justice is a form of justice, and it is in fact more important than freedom of speech. Fortunately, they aren’t in a whole lot of conflict. The only problem is our country’s refusal to have hate speech laws. Other countries have them with no problems. But, like with healthcare (or gun control), the U.S. is a special snowflake and all sorts of evil will happen, even though it didn’t happen in other countries. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Those who advocate for freedom of speech absolutism very much need to sit down and have a discussion about the harms that freedom of speech can cause, and work to mitigate them. That is why hate speech laws exist in other countries. Freedom of speech exist to make sure those in power can’t silence their opposition. But silencing the worst bigotry has no downside. And, as for your practical considerations, they’re really a bunch of smoke. He can vote to defund the college over a personal slight, yes. But it’s not going to go over well with his constituents. He risks a lot doing that. And, even if he does, he’s one of many. And if the entire Republican party tries to shut down the college, then there’s even more risk of problems for the party than for any individual. These people did not want this guy on their campus. So they used their constitutional right to protest them. They also chose to go on inside, and have to be removed. Everything happened according to the law. That is protesting. It always is about trying to stop people from doing things. It’s what it is, and THAT is the freedom of speech that matters. Not the right to be a bigot, or of the ACLU to defend Nazis or other open bigots. The ACLU needs to show a moral backbone, instead of worshiping the law. If the people you are defending make the world a worse place, don’t defend them. They still have the right to freedom of speech, and can argue it in court, but you are NOT morally obligated to help them. (Nor are you legally obligated.) Every human being on the planet has a responsibility to do what is right. The law is a decent approximation of what is right, but it is often wrong, and the only way to change it is exactly what is going on now. (Sure, in theory you could write your representative, but minorities only have a minority representing them in Congress right now. They’ve had to take everything into their own hands, like in the Civil Rights movement days.) I honestly even understand their point of freedom of speech being a white-man’s law that was created without input from minorities. Because, if minorities were involved, then bigotry would have to be considered, and not just leaving all those minorities as a casualty of freedom of speech. I fight for freedom of speech. I fight against bigotry. And that means the freedom of speech I support is different from the ACLU version, and is the kind that supports anti-hate speech laws. BLM seems to be saying the same sort of thing right now, and so I support that. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/65 "2017-10-15T14:12:01Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Well, of course they do. Because they are correct. Social justice is a form of justice, and it is in fact more important than freedom of speech. Fortunately, they aren’t in a whole lot of conflict. The only problem is our country’s refusal to have hate speech laws. What hate speech is this legislator known for? > [@](#): > > Other countries have them with no problems. [Not really](https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9525/europe-illegal-criticize-islam). > [@](#): > > But silencing the worst bigotry has no downside. One big problem with this statement: even assuming we can keep it to this principle, and avoid sliding from “the worst bigotry” to “bigotry” to “things the people in power don’t like”, “the worst bigotry” is not a hard line in the sand. It’s a vague, blurry gray area. In many parts of Europe, you have to tread that line - err, area - very carefully when criticizing Islam, as the article I linked above points out. From the article: The Court found that when Kiemunki wrote of a “repressive, intolerant and violent religion and culture,” she meant the Islamic faith. For this, and for not clearly differentiating between “islam” and “radical islam”, she was fined 450€. Except that Islam, as a religion, _is_ at its core intolerant, repressive, and violent, and Islamic culture often is as well. These are not facts we should be ignoring when seriously considering the impact of, say, a massive influx of middle-eastern refugees, and they’re certainly not things that should get you in legal trouble. And again, what would you call “Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon”? Is that hate speech? How about “blue lives matter”? How about “Black people as a group have a lower average IQ than white people”? (After all, Charles Murray got hounded off campus.) There’s no clear-cut line here, and nothing to keep us from sliding further away. > [@](#): > > And, as for your practical considerations, they’re really a bunch of smoke. He can vote to defund the college over a personal slight, yes. But it’s not going to go over well with his constituents. He risks a lot doing that. And, even if he does, he’s one of many. And if the entire Republican party tries to shut down the college, then there’s even more risk of problems for the party than for any individual. Maybe you should double-check what republicans think of higher education overall. The problem is definitely not “this will not go over well with his constituents”. His constituents are probably, by and large, _already against higher education_. They think that higher education is liberal brainwashing. What impression does it send when an _elected republican_ gets hounded off campus? All it does is reinforce the idea that republicans are not welcome on campus. This is a message republicans get _pretty regularly_ at this point. And at that point, why should republicans support public higher education? They aren’t welcome, their values aren’t taught, they’re often demonized, and no matter how justified any of that may seem to you or I, it doesn’t matter to Joe Wifebeater in the trailer park when he goes to vote. This is not some vague concern. One of the two major political parties in this country - the one currently holding _all of the power_ - has voters who, by and large, do not support higher eduction. Is now really the best time to give them a picture-perfect justification for that position? Even if you think deplatforming is a good idea, it should be applied strategically. Deplatform the human version of the youtube comments section. Deplatform the neo-nazi. Don’t deplatform a goddamn elected official (or, y’know, the ACLU)! > [@](#): > > These people did not want this guy on their campus. So they used their constitutional right to protest them. They also chose to go on inside, and have to be removed. Everything happened according to the law. That is protesting. It always is about trying to stop people from doing things. It’s what it is, and THAT is the freedom of speech that matters. Not the right to be a bigot, or of the ACLU to defend Nazis or other open bigots. Your right to freedom of speech does not extend to silencing others. This is pretty basic stuff, I shouldn’t have to explain this to you again. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/66 "2017-10-15T15:13:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Who is saying you have to do that? If you don’t want to hear what the person is saying, then what the fuck are you doing there listening to him in the first place. Get your ass up and leave!! That’s a time honored indication of protest. The people that are saying you have to do that are the people that I was directly replying to. > [@septimus](#): > > : > > In the olden days, Americans had a concept called [_dialog_ (3)](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dialog). We would listen to each other, even if we knew we were in disagreement, to understand an alternate point of view. We might listen to a speaker we opposed so we could pose questions to him on his own terms. > [@MEBuckner](#): > > Yeah. Another good, solid, proper way of using one’s free speech to protest the free speech of those with whom you disagree: Go to the damn speech, and sit and listen. Take notes, even. Then, during the Q&A–of course this only applies to speeches where there’s a Q&A afterwards–_ask questions_. I don’t just mean jump up during the Q&A and yell “FASCIST PIG!” (or “Why are you a fascist pig?” or “Have you quite beating your wife yet, you fascist pig?”). I mean real, serious, well-thought-out questions that the sonofabitch will actually have to struggle to give good answers to. > > But of course that would be _hard_. So, take your advice of get up and leave, or their advice of sit and listen? > [@MEBuckner](#): > > So, nobody gets to unilaterally decide which other people have the right to free speech, not even if those other people really are Actual Fucking Nazis. > > As to when you should protest by standing outside and chanting and waving signs, and when you should protest by going inside and asking the motherfucker questions, and when you should engage in respectful dialogue on the basis of mutual respect and civility–again, _ALL_ of that must decided by each individual person, on the basis of his or her own conscience, reason, and experience. Different people will undoubtedly decide differently; even while some people are inside getting their hardball questions ready for the Q&A session, other people will be outside chanting and waving signs. There is a difference between having freedom of speech, and being endorsed by the institution by being given a platform from which to speak. If you are out in a public space, you can speak your piece, and as long as it isn’t obscene or inciting, you can get away with it. If you are invited into a space to give a presentation, the institution that has invited you has implicitly endorsed your speech. When people are protesting against a speaker that is invited by a group that endorses hate speech, they are not just protesting that speaker, they are protesting that group. They are pointing out that that group has very poor judgment in who they ask to come to give them direction in their lives. They are bringing attention to the fact that these groups are inviting these speaker to spew their hate. They are not just protesting the speaker themself, but are also protesting against the decision of the institution to promote this person’s speech. (Which in this case was simply bringing up the fact that the university was not granted an opportunity to decide at all.) I don’t think that everyone who wants to speak at a university should be given a platform, just because they want to speak at a university. Even in the case where there is a student group that wishes for a speaker to come, I do not think that that means that there should be no consideration for what types of speech that the university is promoting. Just because some group of students wants the university to promote their speaker, does not mean that the university should be required to give their endorsement to all and any who apply. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/67 "2017-10-15T18:23:39Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > My _god_ man, have you read _anything_ I’ve ever posted in the last 9 years? Hmm, let’s take a look at the playback: This was post 47: > [@Murderface](#): > > I’ve always been over it. It’s truly a hate group. This was post 48: > [@Chimera](#): > > Nobody really gives a shit what right wingers think of BLM. You guys are poisoned by your propaganda. So no, I don’t care what you think, no I’m not going to try to change your mind, no I’m not going to explain how you’ve been lied to by your own side. You won’t listen, and I’m not interested in what you have to say about it. Who do you think post 48 was most likely written in response to, dipshit? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/68 "2017-10-15T18:41:14Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > The people that are saying you have to do that are the people that I was directly replying to. > > So, take your advice of get up and leave, or their advice of sit and listen? No, no one is saying what you posted: “It is not for me, as a white cisgendered heterosexual male to tell someone else to just smile and not to be offended when people are talking about stripping their rights.” Emphasis added. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/69 "2017-10-15T21:06:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, no one is saying what you posted: > > “It is not for me, as a white cisgendered heterosexual male to tell someone else to just smile and not to be offended when people are talking about stripping their rights.” > > Emphasis added. Ah, I misunderstood what you said that no one said. This is what I was responding to, and while it does not say that they should smile and not be offended, I do feel that that comment is a good contrast to “smile and cede the moral high ground”, as no one said that, either. > [@MEBuckner](#): > > or smile and cede them the moral high ground without even thinking about it, 'cause, hey, I’m a cis-gender heterosexual white male, so what do I know? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/70 "2017-10-15T21:39:06Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Well, of course they do. Because they are correct. Social justice is a form of justice, and it is in fact more important than freedom of speech. Fortunately, they aren’t in a whole lot of conflict. The only problem is our country’s refusal to have hate speech laws. Other countries have them with no problems. But, like with healthcare (or gun control), the U.S. is a special snowflake and all sorts of evil will happen, even though it didn’t happen in other countries. > > I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Those who advocate for freedom of speech absolutism very much need to sit down and have a discussion about the harms that freedom of speech can cause, and work to mitigate them. That is why hate speech laws exist in other countries. Freedom of speech exist to make sure those in power can’t silence their opposition. But silencing the worst bigotry has no downside. > > And, as for your practical considerations, they’re really a bunch of smoke. He can vote to defund the college over a personal slight, yes. But it’s not going to go over well with his constituents. He risks a lot doing that. And, even if he does, he’s one of many. And if the entire Republican party tries to shut down the college, then there’s even more risk of problems for the party than for any individual. > > These people did not want this guy on their campus. So they used their constitutional right to protest them. They also chose to go on inside, and have to be removed. Everything happened according to the law. That is protesting. It always is about trying to stop people from doing things. It’s what it is, and THAT is the freedom of speech that matters. Not the right to be a bigot, or of the ACLU to defend Nazis or other open bigots. > > The ACLU needs to show a moral backbone, instead of worshiping the law. If the people you are defending make the world a worse place, don’t defend them. They still have the right to freedom of speech, and can argue it in court, but you are NOT morally obligated to help them. (Nor are you legally obligated.) > > Every human being on the planet has a responsibility to do what is right. The law is a decent approximation of what is right, but it is often wrong, and the only way to change it is exactly what is going on now. (Sure, in theory you could write your representative, but minorities only have a minority representing them in Congress right now. They’ve had to take everything into their own hands, like in the Civil Rights movement days.) > > I honestly even understand their point of freedom of speech being a white-man’s law that was created without input from minorities. Because, if minorities were involved, then bigotry would have to be considered, and not just leaving all those minorities as a casualty of freedom of speech. > > I fight for freedom of speech. I fight against bigotry. And that means the freedom of speech I support is different from the ACLU version, and is the kind that supports anti-hate speech laws. BLM seems to be saying the same sort of thing right now, and so I support that. Listen, you obstinate fool, you have no idea how to effectively even categorize so-called hate speech. What makes you think you can trust the same government that BLM and others protest to define and prohibit so-called hate speech in a just fashion? You honestly can’t see the paradox. :smack: You didn’t even read the article you are attempting to summarize. The person escorted out weren’t the protesting thugs. It was the invited speaker under the pretense it was for his own safety after the president of the university brought in his muscle. What’s going to happen, BigT, in your dystopic world is that whoever can act more violently will have platform. Have fun in that world BigT. And how do you fight for anything? You post sermons on a message board. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2017, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/71 "2017-10-15T21:49:11Z")
> [@treis](#): > > As evidenced by all the times right wingers have come out and shut down events they don’t agree with, right? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/72 "2017-10-16T05:22:13Z")
> [@treis](#): > > As evidenced by all the times right wingers have come out and shut down events they don’t agree with, right? > > Seriously people, how would you feel if BLM decided tomorrow that the SDMB was giving a platform to Nazis and shut it down with a DOS attack? I’m sure it wouldn’t be “Oh it’s so wonderful oppressed people are standing up for themselves”. Some would Then there would be the 'Prove its BLM. Where are their offices? Who are their leaders? BLM are just a Right-Wing Boogie Man." Then there would be the False Flaggers Then there would be the “Now you know what its like to be silenced” ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/73 "2017-10-16T12:55:34Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The only problem is our country’s refusal to have hate speech laws. Other countries have them with no problems. But, like with healthcare (or gun control), the U.S. is a special snowflake and all sorts of evil will happen, even though it didn’t happen in other countries. […] But silencing the worst bigotry has no downside. Who gets to decide what the worst bigotry is? How do you feel about these cases? [http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2010/03/militant\_atheist\_found\_guilt\_o.html](http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2010/03/militant_atheist_found_guilt_o.html) > **[The preacher against homosexuality](https://freespeechdebate.com/case/the-preacher-against-homosexuality/)** > > In October 2001, an Evangelical Christian preacher called Harry Hammond held up a placard saying, What about these ones? Would these acts have been illegal in the US? Do you think they should be? > **[Norwood v. United Kingdom - Global Freedom of Expression](https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/norwood-v-uk/)** > > Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to advance understanding of the international and national norms and institutions that best protect the free flow of information and expression in an inter-connected global community with major common... > **[State of the Netherlands v. Wilders - Global Freedom of Expression](https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/state-netherlands-v-wilders/)** > > Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to advance understanding of the international and national norms and institutions that best protect the free flow of information and expression in an inter-connected global community with major common... > **[Norwegian Prosecution Authority v. X - Global Freedom of Expression](https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/norwegian-prosecution-authority-v-x/)** > > Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to advance understanding of the international and national norms and institutions that best protect the free flow of information and expression in an inter-connected global community with major common... > **[Case of Jaume Roura and Enric Stern - Global Freedom of Expression](https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/case-of-jaume-roura-and-enric-stern/)** > > Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to advance understanding of the international and national norms and institutions that best protect the free flow of information and expression in an inter-connected global community with major common... As someone who lives in a country with hate speech laws, I hope the US never enacts them. I’ve always admired the first amendment and I’m glad there is somewhere that people can say even the most offensive things without going to jail for it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/74 "2017-10-16T14:03:33Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Ah, I misunderstood what you said that no one said. > > This is what I was responding to, and while it does not say that they should smile and not be offended, I do feel that that comment is a good contrast to “smile and cede the moral high ground”, as no one said that, either. I’m confused, because what that poster is saying is to NOT do that. Emphasis added: > [@](#): > > I’m damned sure not going to just blithely take the word of anyone identifying themselves as BLM supporters as to who is and is not an Actual Fucking Nazi (white supremacist, “Alt-Right”, etc.), or smile and cede them the moral high ground without even thinking about it, 'cause, hey, I’m a cis-gender heterosexual white male, so what do I know? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/75 "2017-10-16T14:03:44Z")
Pretty sure you’re trolling, but I’ll answer you anyways. We the people get to decide. We decide the level that rises to being a problem. Fortunately, there is broad agreement at the large strokes among both major parties in the U.S. The only obstacle is our fanatical devotion to freedom of speech as implemented in the 18th century. For your links: all but the last of your latter links are perfectly fine. All of them were across the line where people on either side would agree they were bigoted. The one with burning the royals being an incitement to violence is absolutely bullshit, and using hate speech laws to protect the royals is bullshit. The other two case you give me are interesting in that I can definitely see why they happened. The guy who claimed his putting those images in to try and convince people was just lying. And he was doing this on private property. So I can definitely see the argument that he committed an offense. Had he just protested the inclusion of the prayer room, or published something somewhere he had the right to do so, then I would not have any problem with what he did. The guy with the religious sign is using religion as an excuse to be a bigot. I oppose this. I am fighting really, really hard to get this filth out of Christianity. God does not condone what he is saying. That said, I’m not sure arresting him is the best way to stop that. Had he said “lesbians need to die,” for example, then I’d have no problem with it. Fortunately, there is no chance that any hate speech laws in the U.S. would abridge religious freedoms. Religion is a protected class, and thus will be protected like everything else. The basic agreement between both parties does not extend to restricting religion from bigoted statements. God will deal with this man in the final judgment. “Depart from me, I never knew you,” Jesus will say to him. If he doesn’t repent, of course. Finally, I will say that all those arguments about how people are so easily offended these days are not remotely persuasive to me. They are just ways of trying to reframe bigotry as being “offensive” rather than objectively morally wrong. Something that is offensive is harmless. Bigotry isn’t. Not standing for the flag is offensive. It harms no one. Or, to go the other direction, drawing Mohamed is offensive. It hurts no one. But bigotry has been shown time and time again to harm minorities. It’s not merely being offensive. That guy who put up the Twin Towers was being offensive. But he was also being a bigot in advocating discrimination against Muslims. He’s lucky we don’t live in an “eye for an eye” society, or what he would have done to them would be done to him. You want to advocate that a particular minority be kicked out of the country? You frankly deserve to be kicked out yourself. What he got was a slap on the wrist compared to what he deserved. You may be offended by what I’ve said. That’s fine. But I’ve included no hate speech. I have engaged in no form of blatant bigotry. I am not advocating for laws that say “you have a right to not be offended.” I’m advocating for laws to treat the most blatant bigotry as an exception for freedom of speech, based on the harm that bigotry causes. I’m advocating for doing what is right, rather than treating a principle as sacrosanct. What is right is that which does the least harm. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/76 "2017-10-16T14:41:10Z")
Sounds like a principle to me. A nonsensical one with likely fuzzy definitions, but a principle nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![akwally1](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akwally1/32/3220_2.png) [@akwally1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/akwally1)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/77 "2017-10-16T17:26:13Z")
I work on a college campus, so I am hearing a lot of this lately. And maybe it’s because of the lense I’m viewing all this through (I’m older, white, cis-gendered, etc., etc.), but I’m really seeing a split in the left over this. It seems that a lot of the younger members of the left are very okay with banning hate speech and shouting down people who’s views they consider “alt-right” or hateful. And many of the older left want to treat freedom of speech as sacrosanct (with obvious limits of course, such as inciting to violence). I’m generalizing of course, but those are the groups with which I have the most discussion about these topics and that’s the impression I’ve formed from talking to those groups. Do the pro-banning folks understand that once we start labeling speech “hate speech” and banning it, that all it takes is a shift of power and now _your_ speech is hate speech and it’s banned? I feel like this is going to be a real reason why the left will continue to lose elections, even with the current fucktard in the White House. If the left wants to push moderates and independents away, this is a great way to do it. Mark ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/78 "2017-10-16T17:33:36Z")
> [@akwally1](#): > > Do the pro-banning folks understand that once we start labeling speech “hate speech” and banning it, that all it takes is a shift of power and now _your_ speech is hate speech and it’s banned? Indeed, but let’s not be naive about this. There already is a “shift of power” in this country. It boggles the mind that these young lefties want Trump and Sessions to be the arbiters of which speech is allowed. ---
**Author:** ![akwally1](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akwally1/32/3220_2.png) [@akwally1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/akwally1)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/79 "2017-10-16T17:38:20Z")
Very true **John Mace** , perhaps I should have said \*continuing \*shift of power. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2017, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824/80 "2017-10-16T18:26:09Z")
Double posted [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-over-blm/798824.md?page=5)