Part of the problem - maybe the entire problem? - is as follows:
Telling the truth, as you see it, is the only way to be honest. If you are telling the truth as someone else sees it, you are denying your own core values. (Or if telling the truth is not one of your core values then I don’t want to talk to you.)
Here’s the difference. Referring to something as hateful speech is a simple description. Speech may be mean, loving, careless, precise, ugly, beautiful, ridiculous, or hateful, along with a bunch of other adjectives.
“Hate speech” is different. It seeks to create a category that we all agree is hateful. And that ain’t going to happen. And once that is done, then the next step is to punish and/or forbid it. This is already happening on campuses. Just look at Jordan Peterson who was vilified for refusing to knuckle under to stupidity and agree to refer people by the pronoun of their choice.
Tell me why do we need such a phrase as “hate speech”? What is the purpose of it? What is the utility? What would we be missing if their was no category called “Hate Speech”, just like there is no category called “Beautiful Speech”, “Sardonic Speech”, Wry Speech", etc.? The answer is that the left is trying to weaponize it to protect them from countless imagined microagressions. They need to grow up, not be coddled and told that they have a point.
This is a straw man, and/or an argument about semantics. Okay, this is how you see this phrase, but that’s just your opinion, and my opinion is quite different, as is the opinion of most or all the liberals I know.
I answered your questions - why don’t you answer the ones I asked you earlier?
Claiming something is a strawman doesn’t make it so. Especially in this case where in many countries, including the US, you can indeed be punished for speech.
Please remind me of the questions you want answered. In the meantime, can you answer the ones above in the last paragraph?
Also, what I asked earlier: "To point out the stupidity of such a thing, try to define it. And tell me, who gets to declare that speech X constitutes as “hate speech”?
Yes. And Europe is the canary in the coal mine. People have been punished for factual speech because it the left’s delicate sensibilities. We ignore the canary as it regards both speech and immigration. Amazing.
As for why we need hate speech, I don’t have an opinion. It’s a phrase like any other, used to describe racist and otherwise bigoted speech. If you don’t like it, fine, but why should I care if you prefer a different phrase? I don’t see how it’s different from any other descriptor, and your definition sounds like nonsense.
As for who gets to declare speech as hate speech, anyone can call any speech anything they like. You can call my speech hate speech if you want. That’s part of free speech - anyone can criticize any other speech they want, including using phrases that you don’t like.
Your second paragraph is exactly right, but it is using hate speech as “hateful speech”. We agree on all your points there. But the problem I’m pointing to can be seen already in Europe, and to a lesser extent here on college campuses where some schools do have hate speech codes. So, evidently, what classifies as hate speech is not just up to anyone, there is a governing authority. The good news is that the number of schools doing this may be coming down.
Despite the panic in many conservative blogs, I don’t see this actually happening on American campuses. No one is going to jail for speech. Some people are getting criticized, which is part of free speech.