# Liberal, can we talk about hate speech? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 26, 2005, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980 "2005-02-26T05:33:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/81 "2005-02-26T21:55:04Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I think the point they’re trying to make is that “fundie” is an insult only in Western, English speaking countries, where violence against Christians is exceedingly rare. I believe Richard Pryor had a bit about how “there are no niggers in Africa.” The word just doesn’t have the same currency there that it does here, where it was originally coined and where it was a part of an entire culture of anti-black bigotry. South Africa has the term “kaffir,” which has similar connotations, but how many people in America would be offended by it if they heard it? Even if they know what it means, it doesn’t have the same cultural connotations for us that “nigger” does. > > By extension, “fundie” is a word that, I would wager, is almost unknown outside North America, and anti-Christian bigotry is almost unknown _within_ North America. The fact that Christians are oppressed in Angola is unlikely to give the word “fundie” any more emotional weight to a Christian who has been born and raised in an over-whelmingly pro-Christian nation like the US. Thanks. That’s a very well written and compelling argument. And I never really imagined that the people who have been murdered and imprisoned were likely called the name “fundie”. But since this is an English speaking message board, and the fundamentialists here (and families of some of us — my loving sister is a fundamentalist), then isn’t this one of the places where the word might offend? > [@](#): > > [She.](http://www.jinwicked.com/) Yep, got it now. Again, sorry about that. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/82 "2005-02-26T21:56:32Z")
The “us” above refers to board members, not to fundamentalists. I don’t think I fit that label by any stretch of the imagination. ---
**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:** [February 26, 2005, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/83 "2005-02-26T22:06:48Z")
Offend? Yes, absolutely. That’s pretty much the entire point of the word. **Excalibre** ’s argument (and forgive me if I’m misreading you) is that there is a cultural baggage behind some insulting terms (faggot, nigger, etc.) that does not exsist with the term “fundie,” and therefore those other terms are hate speech, and fundie is not. Mind, I’m not necessarily endorsing that argument, merely explaining it, as far as I understand it. ---
**Author:** ![Zhen\_ka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecccb3/32.png) [@Zhen\_ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zhen_ka)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/84 "2005-02-26T22:19:55Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Thanks. That’s a very well written and compelling argument. And I never really imagined that the people who have been murdered and imprisoned were likely called the name “fundie”. But since this is an English speaking message board, and the fundamentialists here (and families of some of us — my loving sister is a fundamentalist), then isn’t this one of the places where the word might offend? > Yep, got it now. Again, sorry about that. Yep, a compelling argument that I posted above (#66). Won’t cop to it not being compelling or well-written, since Miller understood it (thanks for presenting it in terms that **Liberal** could understand and, more importantly, would acknowledge.) So, **Liberal** , in your opinion, does “fundie” have the cultural baggage that the words “faggot” and “nigger” have? To nitpick, I’d like to stay on topic and deal with the countries and peoples to whom “faggot” and “nigger” have any cultural significance, namely the US and other “western, English-speaking” countries. Or we could just limit it to this message board, since you mentioned it. Maybe you should open a thread in IMHO. Thanks. ps. It’s **Zhen’ka**. Since you’re such a pill (with moderator approval, no less, about your own user name, you’d think you’d be careful or kind enough not to screw up (intentionally or otherwise) other poster’s names. And since I have no difficulty remembering you in all of your incarnations, the least you could do is learn to spell my name. It’s really easy to see on preview. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/85 "2005-02-26T22:22:54Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Again, what difference does it make in terms of what is or isn’t hate speech? You said earlier that you weren’t trying to redefine the term, but isn’t that what you are attempting to do with all this focus on “violence” as the apparent determining factor? > > Hate speech can and does exist both with and without concomitant violence. Starving Artist, I’m illustrating (as I’ve said before) the difference between mere pejoratives and actual hate speech. I’m not trying to play definition games; I’m illustrating why the words “faggot” and “fundie” aren’t comparable. I’ve done that, and you haven’t responded to that point. That distinction is implicit in our approach here anyway; insults are flung freely, while hate speech is banned. “Fundie” falls into the insult category. After all, is it hate speech to call someone “stupid”? What if they really are stupid? There’s at least a few people floating around the Dope that really are stupid. Is it hate speech to call them that? We call others stupid all the time. Is it hate speech to call a smart person “stupid”? Is it okay if the person on the receiving end is smart, and not okay if they’re actually stupid? Or, to look at it from another perspective: I’ve made an argument describing the effects of words like “faggot” and “nigger”. This argument could be used to support banning them, as the words themselves operate as weapons in a way that normal words don’t. It’s now your task, Starving Artist, to demonstrate by argument that “fundie” is also a word that deserves special status. I suspect you’re capable of argument; please don’t disappoint me by falling into your habit of simply demanding that others do all the intellectual work of the argument. If you wanted to look at this from the principles of formal debate, the status quo holds that words like “faggot” are not permitted if used in a hateful manner. It does not accord that status to “fundie”. Liberal has claimed several times that it should, but he hasn’t yet explained why. Were this a debate, he’d be taking the affirmative position, and I started this thread hoping he would put forth a real argument for his position, because I would quite love to hear one. He hasn’t done so as yet, although he has attempted to dismantle opposing arguments. You haven’t either, Starving Artist. Should either of you wish to do so, I’d love to hear it. But as it stands, your point is unproven. Again, if we were looking at this from the perspective of a debate, you guys are losing. > [@Liberal](#): > > Plus, I gave documented proof of rampant violence against Christians in three different countries. Googling “violence against Christians” delivers thousands of hits. Liberal, I’m not arguing that there is no violence against Christians anywhere (though there certainly isn’t as much as some groups would like to suggest.) I’m arguing that gay people, virtually all of them, and in the Western world, no less - have been the _personal_ victims of violence, and that the word “faggot” is closely associated with that violence. I don’t want to get into a game of “who’s the bigger victim” because that’s not my point (and I haven’t argued in that direction at all.) I just hoped to appeal to your empathy for other human beings in order to communicate the fact that “faggot” has an effect on people who hear it that “fundie” doesn’t even approach. If you disagree, please explain - I’ve argued my side, now you argue yours. If you agree, then please stop using it as an analogy when you bring this issue up (as you do, quite often.) Because it really hurts to have the awful things that have happened to me and, moreso, to people I know and love trivialized by comparison to what amounts to mild insults. > [@Liberal](#): > > Thanks for clarifying that publicly. I don’t know whether you’ll believe me, but it is never my intention to nitpick or be oblique. Frankly, Liberal, you seldom seem to put forth actual arguments, with premises and conclusions and all that whatnot in the middle. I don’t mean to be a jerk here, but usually, I see you pick apart others’ arguments without advancing any of your own. It’s not a useful way to debate, in my opinion, and I was truly hoping in opening this thread that you’d take the time to put forth an argument equating those two words (and the general concepts of “hate speech” and “pejorative speech”). I’m really disappointed that you still haven’t done so. I’m hijacking, but my frustration with you is not in your points of view, but in what sometimes seems like a bullheaded refusal to justify them. Don’t make me do all the work here, Liberal - I put forth an argument, now it’s your turn. Instead of trying to start quibbles over every point I made, make some points of your own. You’re good at starting those quibbles, but winning because the other person lacks the tenacity to defend a valid argument against platoon armed with needles is not really winning at all. If you can justify why “fundie” is a weapon the way “faggot” is, please do so. Whether Christians in some places are persecuted or not doesn’t have any weight unless you can demonstrate that “fundie” is used as a weapon against them, and that fundamentalist Christians are in particular a target comparable to gay people. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/86 "2005-02-26T22:29:33Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > So your view is predicated on the idea that “hate speech” and “pejorative” are equivalents, no? Doesn’t my OP explain why “faggot” has a power far stronger than as a mere pejorative? No one is calling for pejoratives to be banned. There is a rule (that I’m not taking a position on) restricting hate speech. I don’t think you really understand what hate speech means if you think “fundie” counts in the same way as “faggot”. > > This is the point I’ve been trying to make. “Pejoratives” are not outlawed here, in the interest of restricting speech as little as [powerful]. Hate speech is not the same as insulting speech; pejoratives are not necessarily hate speech. And “fundie” and “faggot” just are not equivalent. _(Bracketing added by **kd99** )_ I presume the word you meant to use is “possible.” I think it bears on the crux of the matter, as far as I have observed **Liberal** ’s attitudes. I believe that he considers that it is “possible” to set the limits on the restriction of speech at RESTRICTION LEVEL = 0. As always, I defer to **Liberal** for the elucidation of his actual beliefs. I had not considered, when I first posted to this thread, that determining a consensus definition of the term “hate speech” was to be in the context of the prohibition of hate speech on this board. In the larger context of discussing the phenomenon of hate speech in today’s society, I happen to find your argument quite persuasive, **Excalibre**. In the more narrow context of the Board prohibition, I feel there is room for debate, and **Liberal** ’s argument is not without merit. From my perspective, its major weakness is that it relies upon the assumption that an objective definition of “hate speech” is a precondition for any policy to be valid. A proposition that is fodder for considerable debate in itself. I’d like to thank you, **Liberal** , for your response to the question I raised in my first post, and for the clarification you provided _vis-a-vis_ your position on the term “hand-stabber” discrepancies in dates aside, of course :D. ---
**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:** [February 26, 2005, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/87 "2005-02-26T22:35:31Z")
I thought **Liberal** ’s position was pretty clear. He’s defining hate speech as any pejorative applied to a group of people. Faggot for all gay people, fundie for all fundamentalists, and arguing that if one group is protected from hate speech, then so should the other. The fact that gays are more upset at being called “faggots” than Christians are at being called “fundies” is irrelevant, as it’s too subjective a criteria on which to base ostensibly objective rules. You’re operating under a different definition, which places more weight on the reaction of the target of the insult (which is more subjective, I think, than you believe) and takes cultural and historical context into consideration. Which definition is the stronger? I honestly can’t say. They both seem to have equal merit. ---
**Author:** ![Zhen\_ka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecccb3/32.png) [@Zhen\_ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zhen_ka)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/88 "2005-02-26T22:46:24Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I thought **Liberal** ’s position was pretty clear. He’s defining hate speech as any pejorative applied to a group of people. Faggot for all gay people, fundie for all fundamentalists, and arguing that if one group is protected from hate speech, then so should the other. The fact that gays are more upset at being called “faggots” than Christians are at being called “fundies” is irrelevant, as it’s too subjective a criteria on which to base ostensibly objective rules. You’re operating under a different definition, which places more weight on the reaction of the target of the insult (which is more subjective, I think, than you believe) and takes cultural and historical context into consideration. > > Which definition is the stronger? I honestly can’t say. They both seem to have equal merit. Fundie for all fundamentalists? Except that Liberal acknowledges that there can be different kinds of fundamentalists–Christain, Muslin, etc. They can all be called fundies. Faggot for all gay people? Unless you can describe a group of people who are not homosexual (or aren’t sticks or cigarettes(fags)), then that argument seems to fall apart. I would contend that it is not simply the target of the insult that makes a word hate speech, but rather the consensus that builds, taking in the cultural and historical baggage associated with the word, from that word’s usage. Tell me another context in which “faggot” and “nigger” are used, and I’d be inclined to agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/89 "2005-02-26T22:49:43Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > duffer, do me a favor and don’t hijack to complain about Reeder. Folks here are plenty aware of how he operates. I’d like this thread at least ot get a response from Liberal before it turns into a shitfest. No hijack intended and **Reeder** ’s was just the most convenient post to use. My sincere apologies. I’ll be leaving now. 🙂 ---
**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:** [February 26, 2005, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/90 "2005-02-26T22:55:40Z")
> [@Zhen'ka](#): > > Fundie for all fundamentalists? Except that Liberal acknowledges that there can be different kinds of fundamentalists–Christain, Muslin, etc. They can all be called fundies. Yes, I know. That’s why I said “fundie equals all fundamentalists,” and not “fundie equals all Christians,” or even “fundie equals all fundamentalist Christians,” even though that last group is, in my experience, the group most often meant when people talk about “fundies.” > [@](#): > > Faggot for all gay people? Unless you can describe a group of people who are not homosexual (or aren’t sticks or cigarettes(fags)), then that argument seems to fall apart. Sorry, you’ve lost me. How does that make the argument fall apart? > [@](#): > > I would contend that it is not simply the target of the insult that makes a word hate speech, but rather the consensus that builds, taking in the cultural and historical baggage associated with the word, from that word’s usage. Tell me another context in which “faggot” and “nigger” are used, and I’d be inclined to agree with you. Yes, and that would be the second argument I presented in the post you’re responding to. And you wouldn’t be agreeing with me, because I have not endorsed either position. As I said, they both seem to have equal merit to me. ---
**Author:** ![Zjestika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/8edcca/32.png) [@Zjestika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zjestika)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/92 "2005-02-26T23:17:21Z")
Wow, **a1bb2etc** , your username just gave me a siezure. ZJ ---
**Author:** ![Zhen\_ka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecccb3/32.png) [@Zhen\_ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zhen_ka)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2005, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/93 "2005-02-26T23:25:32Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Yes, I know. That’s why I said “fundie equals all fundamentalists,” and not “fundie equals all Christians,” or even “fundie equals all fundamentalist Christians,” even though that last group is, in my experience, the group most often meant when people talk about “fundies.” > > Sorry, you’ve lost me. How does that make the argument fall apart? > > Yes, and that would be the second argument I presented in the post you’re responding to. And you wouldn’t be agreeing with me, because I have not endorsed either position. As I said, they both seem to have equal merit to me. Maybe this will help. Though **Liberal** posts that “fundamentalist” as a word can be used to describe different groups, he objects because he believes that the word “fundie” is used as hate speech to describe _Christians_–on this board and in this country. To my knowledge, “faggot” and “nigger” can’t be used to describe anything else but gay people and black people–on this board or in this country, though both are considered hate speech. Others have pointed out different, benign reasons for using “fundie,” like the shorthand used with “lib,” “leftie,” or “hippy.” That’s where the argument falls apart for me. Seems like **Liberal** wants to have the right use the words “nigger” and “faggot” (since they are defined as hate speech on this board) if “fundie” can be used as well. That’s what changing the rule would mean. What I am trying to figure out is if he’s just being stubbornly consistent, or if he really thinks that “fundie” and “nigger” or “faggot” are the same. Others have pointed out that they are not. If **Liberal** would like to explain how they are, using relevant information about how the term “fundie” is used as hate speech on the board or in this culture, I’d be willing to learn something from him. Sorry if my last post was hard to follow–hit reply before I wanted. Not that this one is any more coherent, but… Just wondering, but what exactly is your position? ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/94 "2005-02-27T00:01:14Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > In the more narrow context of the Board prohibition, I feel there is room for debate, and **Liberal** ’s argument is not without merit. From my perspective, its major weakness is that it relies upon the assumption that an objective definition of “hate speech” is a precondition for any policy to be valid. A proposition that is fodder for considerable debate in itself. I brought it up in the context of the board because that is, as far as I can tell, the context that Liberal means when he brings it up. While I’m opposed to societal restrictions on hate speech, of course, I’m a little more amenable to the notion of doing so here, just as we restrict all sorts of legally-permitted speech - the place runs better if we don’t have to waste our time and energy sorting through porn spam and death threats. I can’t quite tell what Liberal’s position is - he seems to want that rule to go away, but mostly he just complains because he seems to think it’s hypocritical to permit “fundie” while restricting “faggot” (though, as I’ve noted, to my increasing frustration he doesn’t deign to explain why.) I’m not exactly sure what policy choice he wishes to have implemented. ---
**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:** [February 27, 2005, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/95 "2005-02-27T00:06:11Z")
> [@Zhen'ka](#): > > Maybe this will help. > > Though **Liberal** posts that “fundamentalist” as a word can be used to describe different groups, he objects because he believes that the word “fundie” is used as hate speech to describe _Christians_–on this board and in this country. Well, he’s right in that it is most often used on this board to refer to Christians. I don’t see any reason to believe he would not have similar objections to it being used to refer to Muslims, or Jews, or any other group with a fundamentalist fringe. I fail to see how this is germane to his argument. > [@](#): > > Others have pointed out different, benign reasons for using “fundie,” like the shorthand used with “lib,” “leftie,” or “hippy.” Wether it qualifies as hate speech or not, I can think of very, very few times I’ve seen the term “fundie” used in a non-pejorative manner. > [@](#): > > Seems like **Liberal** wants to have the right use the words “nigger” and “faggot” (since they are defined as hate speech on this board) if “fundie” can be used as well. I cannot imagine **Liberal** ever using either term in anything but an academic context, such as in this thread. Whatever his other failings, bigotry is _absolutely_ not one of them. > [@](#): > > That’s what changing the rule would mean. What I am trying to figure out is if he’s just being stubbornly consistent, or if he really thinks that “fundie” and “nigger” or “faggot” are the same. Others have pointed out that they are not. Rather, I think he is arguing that enforcement of board rules (and, I assume, off-board civil codes) should be consistent. As much as I appreciate the social and historical context behind words like “faggot,” which does not exsist behind “fundie,” I am also leery of law enforcement that is based on something as ephemeral and unprovable as “It makes me feel bad.” And how on Earth can you prove, objectively, that faggot makes someone feel worse than fundie? Logically, you can argue that one _should_ elicit a stronger reaction than the other, but we’re talking about feelings, here, which are notoriously non-rational. If someone wants to claim that fundie is as upsetting to them as faggot, who are we to tell them their feelings are wrong? And if we concede that they are not wrong, should they not be granted the same respect? > [@](#): > > Just wondering, but what exactly is your position? At this point, I’m not taking one, as my own thoughts are not entirely settled. Emotionally, I want to agree with **Excalibre**. Intellectually, I want to agree with **Liberal**. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/96 "2005-02-27T00:09:35Z")
If you need to hate a group of people, who would you hate or scorn more, gays or fundamentalists ? If you wanted to show scorn to gays, you would call them faggots wouldn’t you ? Now what do you want to call a fundamentalist you wish to scorn ? Is there a word more pejorative for a fundamentalist than “fundie” ? If not, why not ? Even you Merkins have a pejorative handle. I’m not asking these questions to society at large. I’m asking members of this community. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/97 "2005-02-27T00:34:11Z")
Was anyone else suprised to see Australia on that list? I mean Saudi Arabia I can see but I didn’t realize Australia was such a hotbed of anti-christian violence. So I looked at the first pdf (110 pages, I think we need a limit on size of cite) for the reason Australia is on there. > [@](#): > > 26 January 2003 > > A Christian woman of the Mandaean congregation (followers of John the Baptist) in Curtin, one of the detention camps in the Northwest of Australia, claimed to have been raped by two Muslim men around 28 July 2002. She was the only woman in a community of 50 men. The incident was reported to the police. On 1 August 2002, the report was forwarded to the Australian Department of Immigration. In a letter of 20 Nobember 2002 to the general Manager of the Australian Federal Police, it was stated however that this was a case of ‘false accusation’. > > March 2003 > A family that fled from Iran becuase of religious persecution was so severly abused in the camp at Woomera that the whole family ended up being admitted to a hospital with psychiatric problems. The family is part of the Mandaean community and was abused by Muslims. So we have a false accusation from 2002 in their list for 2003. Its footnote I might add tells us that this information came from the highly reputable source of “E-mail to the author”. The second one makes no mention of what the abuse was or even if it related at all to them being christian. I hardly think that every crime commited on a christian by a non-christian falls under the category of ‘violence against christians’. This event is footnoted by the wonderfully descriptive “Australian Presbyterians, March 2003”. I am not entirely sure if that means a couple of Australian Presbyterians related this story to the author in March of 2003 or what. I have to say a report that includes false accusations and examples like these isn’t what I would call an accurate description. In fact I would call it a bad attempt to present obviously biased research as an objective well documented cite. ---
**Author:** ![Zhen\_ka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecccb3/32.png) [@Zhen\_ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zhen_ka)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/98 "2005-02-27T00:34:22Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Well, he’s right in that it is most often used on this board to refer to Christians. I don’t see any reason to believe he would not have similar objections to it being used to refer to Muslims, or Jews, or any other group with a fundamentalist fringe. I fail to see how this is germane to his argument. > > Wether it qualifies as hate speech or not, I can think of very, very few times I’ve seen the term “fundie” used in a non-pejorative manner. > > I cannot imagine **Liberal** ever using either term in anything but an academic context, such as in this thread. Whatever his other failings, bigotry is _absolutely_ not one of them. > > Rather, I think he is arguing that enforcement of board rules (and, I assume, off-board civil codes) should be consistent. As much as I appreciate the social and historical context behind words like “faggot,” which does not exsist behind “fundie,” I am also leery of law enforcement that is based on something as ephemeral and unprovable as “It makes me feel bad.” And how on Earth can you prove, objectively, that faggot makes someone feel worse than fundie? Logically, you can argue that one _should_ elicit a stronger reaction than the other, but we’re talking about feelings, here, which are notoriously non-rational. If someone wants to claim that fundie is as upsetting to them as faggot, who are we to tell them their feelings are wrong? And if we concede that they are not wrong, should they not be granted the same respect? > > At this point, I’m not taking one, as my own thoughts are not entirely settled. Emotionally, I want to agree with **Excalibre**. Intellectually, I want to agree with **Liberal**. Thanks for your response. I don’t think that the people who object to the terms “faggot” and “nigger” (on this board or elsewhere) do so because it makes them “feel bad.” I don’t think that the rule was created to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings. It is precisely because of their historical and cultural baggage that the rule exists and the reason why people cannot simply equate them with a term like “fundie.” I don’t see it as an emotional issue, not when you can’t deny the history of those terms and their usage. Intellectually, those terms are hate speech because of their history and usage–unless you can tell me some other way they are used. I can’t recall in almost five years on this board anyone using the word “fundie” as they might use “nigger” and “faggot.” And, I’ve been around long enough to remember the trolls who had no problem flinging those terms around. I have never read, watched or learned of any incident in a Western, English-speaking country where someone was lynched or tortured because they were a “fundie.” Same can’t be said about homosexual or black people. Though I would be happy to see evidence to the contrary. Besides, the only reason I brought any of this up was to discuss the second point in **Liberal** ’s first post…that’s what started the discussion towards English and other countries (apologies to **Excalibre** if you consider this an unwanted hijack). **Liberal** post in the other thread, IMO, was not relevant and indicative of his tendency to portray himself and other like him (Libertarians, Christians, heck, even Native Americans) as persecuted. Like **Excalibre** , I’d also like to hear **Liberal** ’s take on why “fundie” _should_ be considered hate speech, like “nigger” and “faggot,” etc. He says that the terms are not the same. So, how do they differ and, despite the difference, how is “fundie” so bad that its usage is the same as hate speech? ---
**Author:** ![Zhen\_ka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecccb3/32.png) [@Zhen\_ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zhen_ka)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/99 "2005-02-27T00:48:34Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I have to say a report that includes false accusations and examples like these isn’t what I would call an accurate description. In fact I would call it a bad attempt to present obviously biased research as an objective well documented cite. Thanks for your contribution. I said the same to **Liberal** here: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5887973&postcount=69](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5887973&postcount=69) He replied with this: > [@](#): > > Bias? It is hardly remarkable that violence against Christians would be of interest to, well, Christians, who might then compile incidences of it. That’s like saying that an article on finch mating habits is biased because it appears in a nature journal. The document has more than 500 footnotes, and its bibliography is extensive. You’re certainly welcome to check any of it out. But if you’re refusing even to look at it, you really shouldn’t comment on it one way or the other. From this post: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5888018&postcount=72](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5888018&postcount=72) Not that I said that I refused to look at it or to read the information presented. But, if he can twist the argument around enough, maybe it just might look that way. It’s a biased cite and he knows it. Maybe you’ll have better luck. Could someone point me to the most recent thread where **Liberal** says he doesn’t obfuscate, nitpick or outright lie? Many thanks. ---
**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:** [February 27, 2005, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/100 "2005-02-27T03:41:35Z")
I don’t think any one is arguing that the two terms are _equal_. The argument is that they are _of a kind._ Shoplifting and grand theft auto aren’t equal crimes, either, but they are both still stealing. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/101 "2005-02-27T03:57:02Z")
**Lib** , I had convinced myself that I used _fundie_ mostly as an abbreviation. But I now acknowledge that that may no longer be true. At any rate, since it truly offends you, then I will stop using the word _fundie._ No problem. I am forgetful. If you see me slip up, I hope that you will remind me. > [@](#): > > **jinwicked** : I think the term feminazi is hate speech directed towards overly assertive females. > [@](#): > > **Lib** : Liberal: Violent and aggressive feminists are fair game. I think you are both wrong. The term _feminazi_ is used to put down outspoken women. They don’t have to be “overly” assertive – just _assertive_ (which is healthy). _Assertive_ is very different from the “violent and aggressive” feminists that you mention, **Lib**. Even those violent and aggressive feminists are not “fair game” to a Christian. They are deserving of love, kind words, support, counsel and compassion. Calling someone _Jackass_ is hate speech and shouldn’t be used unless you want to 1) convey the hatred which is within you, 2) hurt someone else, and 3) cause the hatred within you to increase. Of course, the choice is always yours. My personal bug-a-boo is references to _Lefties_. I don’t mind being referred to as part of the Left or a Liberal. Both of those are accurate. But I grew up in the 1950’s when being a “Leftie” meant that you were the moral, political and social equivalent of pond scum. That word is hate speech to me. Pax [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980.md?page=6)