# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/122 "2005-02-28T13:38:28Z")
Besides, it might be noted that a lot of things are subject to change if you try hard enough. There’s the example of a famous singer whose facial features and skin tone betray no trace of his African-American heritage. You _can_ change most things if you are willing to endure the process. Where do you draw the line between “can’t change” and “can change”? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/123 "2005-02-28T14:32:25Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > **Liberal** is correct about the respectful tone toward the poster who turned out to be a troll, which is why the thread no longer exists. I challenged her, but I and one other were the only two to call her on her repugnant views. I came into the thread a little late, but by the time I came to it, she was getting reamed by just about everyone. I still think her later declaration of “it was a bum at the library posting under my name!” was absurdly implausible, and I think it stemmed from her astonishment at how stridently she was being attacked for her apparent advocacy of torture. I did not see her treated with respect at all. As for “fundie,” I’ve thought more about this since the last time I posted on the issue. I do use the word as a pejorative, and I don’t use it in a conversation with a fundie with whom I anticipate the possibility of productive dialogue. I use it to vent. It applies mostly to Christians for me: words migrate from their etymologies. It does not apply to folks who fit an historical definition of fundamentalist. It applies to people who use a “literal accuracy” argument about the Bible to enact repugnant changes in the world, such as enshrining discrimination against non-straight people; blurring the line between church and state; advocating the murder of abortion providers; inflicting injurious corporal punishment on children; and other evils. A person who believes in Biblical inerrancy but does not use such a belief to further evil in the world won’t earn my ire, and I won’t want to vent about them, and I won’t call them a fundy. A person who uses the belief to enact evil will earn my ire for their deeds, and so I might vent about them by calling them a pejorative. It’s not a pejorative that’s traditionally been used by folks committing violence, so it fails the “faggot” test. It’s not a pejorative that applies to people for their genetic makeup, so it fails the “bitch” test. It’s not even a pejorative that applies to people for beliefs out of their control, so it fails the “Papist” test. It’s a pejorative I use only to apply to people who engage in odious behavior. The closest analogy to “fundy” is something like “thug.” Calling someone a thug isn’t hate speech: it’s just using a pejorative to refer to their odious behavior. I’m totally cool with that. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/124 "2005-02-28T15:13:51Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > It’s a pejorative I use only to apply to people who engage in odious behavior. Then why don’t you just call them “jerks”? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/125 "2005-02-28T15:22:18Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Then why don’t you just call them “jerks”? Because “thugs” more accurately describes their behavior of using physical force to coerce and injure people, while still conveying my disapproval. Oh, you mean why don’t I just call “fundies” jerks? For similar reasons. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/126 "2005-02-28T15:27:59Z")
Then why don’t you just call them “thugs”? Why do you feel compelled to seize the very thing that both sides here have argued that they cannot relinquish without manifesting psychosis and use THAT to disparage them? Are there not other people who coerce and injure? And are there not fundamentalists who are loving and kind? Why do they deserve your summary whitewash? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/127 "2005-02-28T15:32:34Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Then why don’t you just call them “thugs”? You misunderstand: I call thugs thugs, and I call fundies fundies. > [@](#): > > Why do you feel compelled to seize the very thing that both sides here have argued that they cannot relinquish without manifesting psychosis and use THAT to disparage them? Are there not other people who coerce and injure? And are there not fundamentalists who are loving and kind? Why do they deserve your summary whitewash? I missed the arguments that fundies cannot relinquish their odious **behavior** without manifesting psychosis. Could you please point me to those arguments? Please reread my initial post in this thread: you’ll discover that I don’t apply the term to all Biblical inerrantists (or whatever). To repeat myself, those fundamentalists who are loving and kind are not the ones using their beliefs to **enact** evil in the world; they’re not the ones that are going to arouse my ire; I’m not going to need to vent about them; I’m not going to refer to them as fundies. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/128 "2005-02-28T15:50:44Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I missed the arguments that fundies cannot relinquish their odious **behavior** without manifesting psychosis. Could you please point me to those arguments? Not their behavior. Their faith. And you have the nerve to call others dishonest. If you searched on “psychotic”, there was a misspelling. This is what Woodstock said: “Even I, as an avowed atheist, wouldn’t say that I could never change my faith - if I had an experience or acquired some evidence that contradicted my beliefs, it would be psychitc not to adjust them.” > [@](#): > > Please reread my initial post in this thread: you’ll discover that I don’t apply the term to all Biblical inerrantists (or whatever). You mean, for example, “a \*\*fundie \*\* with whom I anticipate the possibility of productive dialogue”? (Emphasis mine.) > [@](#): > > To repeat myself, those fundamentalists who are loving and kind are not the ones using their beliefs to **enact** evil in the world; they’re not the ones that are going to arouse my ire; I’m not going to need to vent about them; I’m not going to refer to them as fundies. But you just did. And besides, you’re taking the essential descriptor of their sincere faith and life-experience and morphing it into a pejorative that suits your need to lash out at people. Do you call African-Americans who are thugs “blackies”, or homosexuals who are thugs “homos”. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/129 "2005-02-28T15:59:26Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Not their behavior. Their faith. And you have the nerve to call others dishonest. I absolutely have such nerve, thanks. As I stated, I don’t call people “fundy” because of their faith; I call them that because of their behavior. > [@](#): > > You mean, for example, “a \*\*fundie \*\* with whom I anticipate the possibility of productive dialogue”? (Emphasis mine.) The fundie in that example is a person who uses their belief in Biblical inerrancy to justify engaging in odious **behavior**. However, if I think there’s a chance of productive dialogue with them, I won’t call them fundie. (If that’s unclear, understand that calling them “fundie” uses the vocative form.) > [@](#): > > But you just did. And besides, you’re taking the essential descriptor of their sincere faith and life-experience and morphing it into a pejorative that suits your need to lash out at people. Do you call African-Americans who are thugs “blackies”, or homosexuals who are thugs “homos”. My original post addresses this matter adequately, and I feel no need to repeat myself. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/130 "2005-02-28T16:20:28Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I absolutely have such nerve, thanks. You sure do. You mischaracterized the argument that fundamentalists can’t relinquish their faith as “fundies cannot relinquish their odious behavior without manifesting psychosis.”. A more dishonest argument can scarcely be conceived. Unless, of course, you decide to continue defending it. That could certainly make it worse. > [@](#): > > As I stated, I don’t call people “fundy” because of their faith; I call them that because of their behavior. But it’s their behavior that is thuggish, isn’t it? Fundamentalism is their faith, not their behavior. Even you have acknowledged that they don’t all behave the same. What’s next, something about the “fundie lifestyle”? > [@](#): > > The fundie in that example is a person who uses their belief in Biblical inerrancy to justify engaging in odious **behavior**. I think you’re engaging in odious behavior right now — specifically, reckless bigotry. What should I call you? > [@](#): > > However, if I think there’s a chance of productive dialogue with them, I won’t call them fundie. (If that’s unclear, understand that calling them “fundie” uses the vocative form.) So, you just won’t call them that to their face? > [@](#): > > My original post addresses this matter adequately, and I feel no need to repeat myself. Thank you! ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/131 "2005-02-28T16:21:57Z")
I’m invite you to enjoy my posts as a reader, and not as a responder. I’ll do the same with yours. Perhaps if you enjoy them as a reader, you might actually, y’know, **read** them. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/132 "2005-02-28T16:41:13Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > I don’t see what difference it makes if something can be changed anyway. The only reason I can see that it would matter is because a fundamentalist Christian (in this case, but insert just about any other religious group, depending on time and place) can give up their faith if they’re being persecuted (note that I don’t particularly think fundamentalist Christians are persecuted in this country. It’s the example at hand, however.) Are you saying that religious people shouldn’t kvetch about persecution but just change their faith? I don’t agree with this viewpoint. That’s the only sense I can make out of your distinction, though. Personally, I think people’s religious faith ought to be protected from persecution as much as any other characteristic. > > When it comes to gay issues, I think the focus on whether or not it’s changeable is harmful, since I don’t think people’s sexual orientation is a valid reason to discriminate against them, whether changeable or not. Are bisexual people unworthy of protection, since they could simply pursue only straight relationships? I’m gay, but I could just remain celibate in order to avoid being persecuted for being gay. Is that fair? It certainly has been common enough, historically - and there’s still the ex-gay groups pushing that today. > > I just don’t see why it makes a lick of difference whether a person’s faith is changeable or not, since it’s worthy of protection either way. We have the freedom to make a lot of choices in our society, but that freedom doesn’t mean much if persecution as a result becomes so intense as to make minority choices impossible. First of all, if the term “fundie” makes you (the generic “you”, not you personally) feel you’re being so intensely persecution that it renders your ability to make choices impossible, you’re a huge pussy and should probably consider suicide tout suite, because life is going to be unbearable for you if you’re really that sensitive. Come on, let’s not be huge drama queens about this. Secondly, my point is that “hate speech” - you know, the hate speech they pass laws about (see: hate crimes) - is based, as far as I can tell, on the idea that it is derogatory speech based solely on attributes that cannot be controlled, such as race or sexual orientation. This seems only logical to me, as otherwise it would mean, as others in this thread have taken it to, _any_ perjorative terms. In which case, it is indeed meaningless, as those with such an interpretation claim, because it makes _every single person on Earth_ a victim. Which is absurd, especially if you believe the right to free speech outweighs your (unwritten but taken as a birthright) freedom not to be offended. And yes, I believe freedom of speech should include the right to make racist or homophobic statements. But I’m not here to debate whether or not the idea of hate speech is unconstitutional. I’m saying that there _are_ degrees of offensiveness, even looked at objectively - can you honestly not see the difference between putting someone down for their beliefs and putting them down for the color of their skin? One is hating the ideas of a person, while the other is hating the idea of the person themself. Nobody has any say in their race/sexual orientation; everybody has a say in what they believe. Sorry, I just don’t buy the argument that they don’t. I have held very strong beliefs that I changed because of new, more compelling evidence or arguments; unless you never stop to think about anything and just accept whatever’s being shovelled into you by whatever authority figure you choose to follow, your beliefs are at least partially controllable and open to revision. I, and I’m sure most everyone here, have been insulted for my beliefs and opinions (and let’s face it, when it comes to theism/atheism, it’s all opinions - nobody has any concrete facts on either side - in other words, it’s a _choice_), and as a reasonable person, I can chalk it up to a difference of opinion, which isn’t to say I don’t get upset about it on occasion. But so what? Ideas and thoughts are open to attack and/or ridicule, unless you want to take cultural relativism to an idiotic extreme and say every single thought and belief is as valid as any other. In which case we might as well abandon logic altogether, because it’s on the same footing as fuck-ass crazy illogic anyway. But if you can’t tell the difference between attacking someone for his ideas and attacking him for his genetic makeup, maybe we’ve already reached that level of relativism. > [@Excalibre](#): > > Besides, it might be noted that a lot of things are subject to change if you try hard enough. There’s the example of a famous singer whose facial features and skin tone betray no trace of his African-American heritage. You can change most things if you are willing to endure the process. Where do you draw the line between “can’t change” and “can change”? I’m assuming you’re talking about Michael Jackson - what a great example to use to illustrate the similarities between biology and theology. Come on, you must see how weak that is. But let’s pretend it’s a good point, and every African American has billions of dollars to throw away on 47 plastic surgery operations to make themselves appear caucasian. Do you see why it’s fucked up that they would even _consider_ such a thing? Because the only reason I can see to do it would be because they were ashamed of their race in the first place. And the fact that it can be brought up as a possible option, much less one that has actually occurred (in front of the whole world’s eyes, I might add - he’s really not fooling anybody, is he?), just shows how profound an effect the type of hate speech/hateful ideas based on race has. OTOH, I haven’t heard of too many fundamentalist Christians in this country so traumatized by abuse that they hide their beliefs - in fact, the fundamentalist Christians I’ve known have tended to ignore any scorn that comes their way and, in many cases, work to convert those who are repulsed by their beliefs, or at least argue their position more vehemently. Anyway, I can believe a person (or a group of people)'s stupid or deluded and not hate them. One who slurs people based on race, however, seem much more likely to be using the term to express hatred of that person or group of people. Honestly, I don’t think it’s worth getting too worked up over insults based on belief: You can call me a pinko commie, or a dumb-ass with shitty arguments - hell, you can even call me a fucking asshole right here based on this post - and I’ll recognize you’re insulting the ideas, and not trying to imply that I’m somehow sub-human. Get it? ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/133 "2005-02-28T16:43:58Z")
That line in the first paragraph, obviously, should read “intensely persecut_ed_”. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/134 "2005-02-28T17:04:14Z")
> [@Woodstock](#): > > Honestly, I don’t think it’s worth getting too worked up over insults based on belief: You can call me a pinko commie, or a dumb-ass with shitty arguments - hell, you can even call me a fucking asshole right here based on this post - and I’ll recognize you’re insulting the ideas, and not trying to imply that I’m somehow sub-human. Get it? Suppose someone with an enormous amount of religious fervor and zeal called you an “infidel” based on your beliefs (or lack of them), and marshalled people everywhere who share his worldview to smite you on sight. Would you get “worked up”? ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/135 "2005-02-28T19:58:57Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Then why don’t you just call them “thugs”? > > Why do you feel compelled to seize the very thing that both sides here have argued that they cannot relinquish without manifesting psychosis and use THAT to disparage them? Are there not other people who coerce and injure? And are there not fundamentalists who are loving and kind? Why do they deserve your summary whitewash? Lib, he said, “A person who uses the belief to enact evil will earn my ire for their deeds, and so I might vent about them by calling them a pejorative.” I think this is clear - he’s not into blanket condemnation of those who hold the five fundamentals (or whatever other technical test there is of Christian Fundamentalism.) The odious, Pharasaic behavior of _certain_ Fundamentalists (and, not to be the guy who says “some of my best friends are Fundamentalists”, but you’re not the only one with friends and family who hold those beliefs. Fortunately, my family is of the decent variety, and I wouldn’t be friends with the other sort, but I digress . . . ) is what LHoD is condemning. I’m not quite clear on whether you’re defending those people here or not; my sympathy is aroused much less by the plight of those who would, for example, reinstate laws against me having sex. As LHoD stated, these people _do_ have control over their behavior. He doesn’t wish them to give up their faith, just the shitty things they do to the rest of us in its name. > [@Liberal](#): > > Suppose someone with an enormous amount of religious fervor and zeal called you an “infidel” based on your beliefs (or lack of them), and marshalled people everywhere who share his worldview to smite you on sight. Would you get “worked up”? Would that I had your succinctness, Liberal. woodstock - you’re defending the idea that if some aspect of you is changeable, then it’s acceptable to treat you badly because of it. You know, because you could change if you decided to. That’s a really shitty thing to say. Unless you manage to make your point clearer, and it turns out to be a lot different then what you’ve been saying so far, then yeah, you are an asshole. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/136 "2005-03-01T00:31:25Z")
One of the points I believe **Liberal** is attempting to make is “it’s a bad idea to enact a board policy based on a definition that is vague and not cut-and-dried”. However, if we were to follow this argument, we’d basically never be able to pass useful laws. For instance, take a very simple and black-and-white-seeming law, the law against murdering. Sure, most people agree that going out and getting a gun and hunting down someone for sport and killing them is murder, and fighting off an attacker who is trying to kill you is NOT murder. But there is a wide continuum of situations in between. If I was bored, I could come up with 30 or 40 hypothetical examples, starting with the most cold blooded murder imaginable and ending with the most excusable and understandable self-defense killing ever, and the step between each one of those 30 or 40 to the next would seem tiny and inconsequential, but added up, you’ve got the difference between murder and not-murder. So there will be cases in the middle there that some dopers would call murder and others wouldn’t. And probably different US courts would rule different ways at different times, depending on the lawyers. So, overall, it’s a big mess. But do we look at that mess, wash our hands of it, and refuse to outlaw murder? No, because we find murder sufficiently bad that we are willing to do our best to come up with guidlines and laws and court cases that will help sort things into murder and not-murder. And even if it was just 20 of us in a crude pioneer society without the time and book-learning to have precedent and courts and a general framework of established justice, we’d STILL outlaw murder. And we might end up with a truly horrible case that fell right on the middle of the spectrum, where 9 of us thought it was murder, and 9 thought it was not-murder, and it ripped our society up. And, even knowing that that might happen, we’d STILL outlaw murder. Similarly, I am certain that someone posting “I saw a fucking nigger looking at my wife, and I beat the shit out of him” is hate speech. And I am also certain that “I disagree with some board Christians, specifically **Liberal** and **Polycarp** , about their interpretation of this passage from _Thessalonians_…” is not hate speech. But there are things which I’m not sure about. There are (I’m sure) the things the moderators are not sure about. Almost no matter how carefully they crafted a definition of what is and what isn’t hate speech, there would always be cases that might or might not qualify. Does that alone mean that there should be no policy banning hate speech? A few other thoughts: -Almost everything is contextual. Generally, “nigger” is far, far more offensive than “black”. But there are plenty of examples of “nigger” being used familiarly. And “black” could certainly be used as hate speech. Think of the difference between the “Jew” and “Fucking Jew”. - **Exaclibre** tells me that the word “faggot” causes him discomfort and fear. I also am aware of the group of which he’s a member, and the history of violence that that group has suffered, and continues to suffer. Thus, I take his claim seriously. Thus, I view the word “faggot” as hate speech. If, on the other hand, someone says to me “oh, the kids on the playground used to make fun of me and beat me up while calling me a ‘funnywalker’. The word ‘funnywalker’ is hate speech”, even if I believe that they are telling the absolute truth, I don’t know anything about that context, nor what group has suffered from that epithet. Thus, I don’t immediately view ‘funnywalker’ as hate speech. But if enough people came along and said the same thing, I eventually would. Again, the borderline is fuzzy and ill-defined. I wish it was better defined. That doesn’t mean I pretend the whole idea is untenable. (A good example of a borderline word is “gypped”. I’ve had a few, but only a VERY few, people claim that they find that word hurtful because of their gypsy heritage…) -The question of whether hate speech should be banned in the first place is a separate one, I’m just trying to point out that it’s logically feasible to ban hate speech even without a clear and rigorous definition of it. -I can’t believe **Liberal** even brought UP violence against Christians in other countries and from other time periods. That’s one of the silliest things I’ve ever seen him do. I mean, come ON. **Excalibre** didn’t say “gay people have, in various times and places in the past, suffered prejudice. That makes the word ‘faggot’ hate speech.” He said "I, and people I know, are at risk RIGHT NOW TODAY RIGHT HERE, and that risk would often be accompanied SPECIFICALLY BY THE WORD ‘FAGGOT’ ". ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/137 "2005-03-01T04:01:07Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Suppose someone with an enormous amount of religious fervor and zeal called you an “infidel” based on your beliefs (or lack of them), and marshalled people everywhere who share his worldview to smite you on sight. Would you get “worked up”? Probably. I fail to see how using the word “fundie” (which I agree is meant as an insult) to describe a fundamentalist is akin to marshalling non-fundies to “smite that person on sight”, though. > [@Excalibre](#): > > woodstock - you’re defending the idea that if some aspect of you is changeable, then it’s acceptable to treat you badly because of it. You know, because you could change if you decided to. That’s a really shitty thing to say. Unless you manage to make your point clearer, and it turns out to be a lot different then what you’ve been saying so far, then yeah, you are an asshole. Acceptable? It depends. More acceptable than treating somebody badly because of their race. Example: can you see how “treating someone badly” (using a derogatory term for them) because they’re in the Klan, spouting racist views, is different than the derogatory terms used by the Klan member in his denunciations of minorities? Or is it all the same? Because if it is, your calling me an asshole (which doesn’t make me feel persecuted in the least) is just as bad as me using the term “fundie”. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/138 "2005-03-01T04:30:22Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > Probably. I fail to see how using the word “fundie” (which I agree is meant as an insult) to describe a fundamentalist is akin to marshalling non-fundies to “smite that person on sight”, though. > > Acceptable? It depends. More acceptable than treating somebody badly because of their race. Example: can you see how “treating someone badly” (using a derogatory term for them) because they’re in the Klan, spouting racist views, is different than the derogatory terms used by the Klan member in his denunciations of minorities? Or is it all the same? Because if it is, your calling me an asshole (which doesn’t make me feel persecuted in the least) is just as bad as me using the term “fundie”. Ok, woodstock. Newsflash: NOT ALL FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS ARE EVIL! I’m beginning to see where the right’s coming from on this issue. Not all those who hold the particular tenets underlying fundamentalism are evil puppykickers. Whereas being a Klansman does make you inherently evil (or damn close to it at least) being a fundamentalist Christian does not. So your analogy is flawed. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/139 "2005-03-01T04:52:27Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Ok, woodstock. Newsflash: NOT ALL FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS ARE EVIL! > > I’m beginning to see where the right’s coming from on this issue. Not all those who hold the particular tenets underlying fundamentalism are evil puppykickers. Whereas being a Klansman does make you inherently evil (or damn close to it at least) being a fundamentalist Christian does not. So your analogy is flawed. My Klan example was used to point out the differences in types of “hate” speech, not to draw similarities between the Klan and fundamentalists. Nowhere did I say fundamentalists were evil. Come on, stop trying to draw conclusions I’m not supplying. ---
**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:** [March 1, 2005, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/140 "2005-03-01T06:26:49Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > One of the points I believe **Liberal** is attempting to make is “it’s a bad idea to enact a board policy based on a definition that is vague and not cut-and-dried”. > > However, if we were to follow this argument, we’d basically never be able to pass useful laws. _snip_ Well, his last username wasn’t Libertarian for nothin’! (Sorry to snip your thoughtful post. I just couldn’t resist!) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980/141 "2005-03-01T08:07:40Z")
> [@Max](#): > > One of the points I believe Liberal is attempting to make is “it’s a bad idea to enact a board policy based on a definition that is vague and not cut-and-dried”. It’s not that it’s vague; it’s arbitrary — protecting some, but not others — based on subjective whim. There’s a rule at Stormfront against “Jew speak”, whatever that is. As far as I’ve been able to figure, it’s whatever the head knockers don’t like. Here with so-called hate-speech, same same. > [@](#): > > I can’t believe Liberal even brought UP violence against Christians in other countries and from other time periods. I can’t believe you call 2003 “other time periods”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-can-we-talk-about-hate-speech/291980.md?page=8)