What counts as 'hate speech'?

[Irishman]

@SDMBKL

I am beginning to think that the anti-Christian or anti-gay thing all take place on the Internet or something fairly new.

Anti-gay sentiments are ancient. With the growing tide of tolerance of homosexuality, there is a vocal backlash from the more conservative members of society, who view that tolerance as an attack on their values. They perceive the acceptance of others being gay as too permissive, as an attack on their sensibilities.

Similarly, there is a growing population in America who are tired of keeping their atheism silent. They want the same freedom of expression that Christians have taken for granted.

Both groups find the internet a viable communication pathway, for similar reasons. The interconnectivity of the internet allows people the ability to reach and get visibility much farther spread than one could ever get before, in much simpler terms. It is much easier to make connections with people of similar beliefs. Where a person used to feel isolated and thus the need to keep quiet, there’s a sense of solidarity from the availability of like-minded individuals.

There’s also a sense of liberation that comes online that people do not have in real life. The same tendencies that lead some people to be perfectly happy being a gigantic ass or troll online because they don’t feel there are any repurcussions give, on a lesser scale, the ability for someone who feels intimidated in real life by work or family or community or whatever the ability to express themselves freely online.

I have not done any research on exactly how many anti-gay or anti-Christian sentiments there are; however, I do know that they are being expressed vehemently in notable social networking websites such as Youtube and even on this forum, the SDMB. On the other hand, it may be after all my perception of the whole matter.

Expressing anti-Christian or even anti-gay sentiments in themselves are not hate speech.

Rereading the Wikipedia article on reappropriation, it says that, “for example, since the early 1970s, much terminology referring to homosexuality—such as gay, queer, and (to a lesser extent) faggot—has been reappropriated.” Call me ignorant or whatever you want, but I remember my childhood in the 1990s that “gay” was a very bad word.

Reappropriation is not an instantaneous process. It takes time for the label to become absorbed. Also, just because a community feels free using the word as a self-label does not mean non-members of the community will not continue to use that term in a negative manner. Whether or not the word itself is a slur, the idea that the word contains is itself a negative concept to some users.

“What are you, some kind of book reader?”

[SDMBKL]

@tomndebb

general terms where a broader interest invites more people to share more ignorance coated in personal prejudices.

Urbandictionary, Uncyclopedia, and Conservapedia, in my opinion, share more ignorance coated in personal prejudices. Urbandictionary is well-known for its meaningless, useless entries that are too redundant and emphatic on the scatological terminologies in the English language. Vocabulary is colorful, but the terms’ usage is nearly useless. Uncyclopedia is good for humor, but occasionally, one can find a bit of humor targeted against a social group, when it suddenly does not become funny anymore. Conservapedia is but a place for “conservatives” to express themselves on the Internet, but in reality, the information is unsupported and fundamentally useless.

When I was speaking about general/esoteric, I meant that Wikipedia is a tertiary source and shouldn’t be used in a, say, research paper. For a research paper, it’s best to use primary or secondary sources first. Tertiary sources are helpful for getting a general knowledge on esoteric subjects (i.e. Differential Equations or Quantum Gravity), but if one wants to learn more about such subjects, one can click on the links or search for qualified, scientific peer-reviewed journals or casual articles and reports posted by credible scientists on trustworthy places on the Internet (i.e. Scientific American).

[SDMBKL]

@TBG

What if in place of Christian, you used the slur “fundie”? Would it be hate speech then?

I think, if one does that, then one is instantly assuming that all Christians are involved in the Fundamentalist Christianity movement. Note that Fundamentalist Christianity is a movement, not a religion. In my opinion, they have the freedom of speech in the United States to express themselves freely; however, essentially they are arguing that faith and reason cannot coexist simultaneously. Now, if one uses this “fundie” term to describe all Christians (as Christians is a very diverse group of people), then that would be a great insult to them because the term is implying that all Christians cannot reconcile their faith with reason, when really reconciling faith with reason has been done before by previous theologians in history.

[SDMBKL]

@tomndebb

Actually, Wikipedia appears to be more accurate in terms of esoteric knowledge, where the authors tend to be limited to the geeks and mavens interested in those topics, than it is on more general terms where a broader interest invites more people to share more ignorance coated in personal prejudices.

The New York Times once mentioned that Wikipedia has a gender gap, and some believe that this is causing some bias in the articles. One time, I noticed a person in the reference desks, calling one article “racist”. Respondents defend Wikipedia, saying that the “OP” should contribute to Wikipedia and change it for the better, as the OP is a member as well, and that all sources are liable to some degree of bias, depending on who is talking about the subject. Therefore, more reliable sources from different cultures are key.