>&humanities

Some people consider violence an appropriate response to some types of hate speech. Even if no physical violence is occurring at that time against them. I'm not familiar with the specific rationalization of this value/right, but from my understanding hate speech that advocates for acts of violence can very well be interpreted as an act of violence.

Stay with me here. So if attacking someone, or a group of people, who are propagating views of violence can be considered virtuous, then should it not be considered a value? If citizens have a right to defend themselves against xenophobic, homophobic, or racist ideas then surely this right can be applied to a broader philosophy.

I guess my question is this. If we take this right to prevent a "persuasion to violence through hate" with violence itself then would the US not be justified in preemptively attacking nations which use hateful speech to convince others to commit acts of violence against the US or its citizens? If Klan members should not be able to freely tell the public that blacks need to be shipped back to Africa through force, then surely Israeli would be justified in attacking Iranian leaders who state that all of Israel and its Jews be wiped off the map.

Why would this personal "right" of protection from speech not apply to the geopolitical level? How can anti hate speech advocates reconcile the fact that their philosophy would mean Israelis would be justified in going out in the streets to beat Iranians or even preemptively bomb their leadership to prevent the hate speech from taking place?

Any devil eggvocates willing to take a jab at my line of thought? What's the difference between punching a Nazi and punching an Arab who thinks America is an abomination?

>What's the difference between punching a Nazi and punching an Arab who thinks America is an abomination?

Arabs are from a religion of prace and mean no ill will, and the Western world (especially Whites) hate them because their peace and love are a threat to American oppression and expansionism.

>but from my understanding hate speech that advocates for acts of violence can very well be interpreted as an act of violence

Your understanding is like a tiny babby.

Okay then flip it around. Are Muslims justified in using violence on American citizens who are a attached to a hate mongering government?

I would be much obliged if you could elaborate on my lack of knowledge, my esteemed user.

I hate the right (and hard left but they label me a Nazi even though voted for Obama twice).

Here is the problem with being OK with violence with people you label as a Nazi...

...is the fact that anyone can just label someone they don't like as a Nazi and let the mob take over.

Don't like your neighbor... Call him a Nazi.
Don't like your boss... Call him a Nazi.
Don't like your ex's new boyfriend... Call him a Nazi.

Also... As a person on the left this trend of calling everyone racist bothers me... Calling people on the fence racist just because they drop the N word or are culturally insensitive only makes the right stronger.

You see, these people don't see themselves aligned with the right or that they are in fact racists. But when you call them a racist and get them fired from there job, you antagonize them as they seem themselves as good persons... Then they start seeing the logic that if they are a good person and are being outcast as a rascist then mabye the real racists like Nazis and KKK are good people too and thats a bad trend.

I really blame the hard left for losing the election to trump. They alienated white people on the fence and forced them to go right.

Yes racism is bad and you should be sensitive to your language, but you can't go around labeling everyone nazis or you normalize nazis and hate speech.

But again... You shouldn't punch people for being a Nazi because again you run into the problem of witch trials where people are getting others labeled as Nazis just because you don't like them.

What people want is to be treated with equality, fairness, and kindness. That we still haven't created the world where that is a universal birthright is the real crisis. Instead of banning words, we should be acting to change the culture that gives rise to that mindless hate.

An allegory:

A double edged sword. Those whom feel threatened by its sharpness are either unprepared for battle or feel overburdened by the strength of the competitor Thus another weapon will be picked that best suits the weaker, but it is one which not only hurts the aggressor, but society as a whole.

It's not a surprise the latter is favored in the realm of domestic politics in the US. Tocqueville noted how citizens of the states never really valued a proper education unless the ends were met with strong financial returns.

Since sophistical refutation is one of the elements of a proper education, violence is favored in the states by default over reasonable debate.

>what the fuck do you expect from a whole bunch of bumbling fucking dumbasses that fucking eat gross shit and watch the stupid box all day? It doesn't matter what political beliefs they hold, they're walking pieces of puss who never have anything interesting to talk about and flee to their stupid phones when forced to interact with society. They're walking billboards, they either want to show the world how fucking gay they look or how proud they are to be fucking borderline mentally retarded.

Go spend sometime reading into something more interesting/less frustrating.

Hate speech is a precursor to violence

I HATE AND HUMANITES SO MUCH

It makes sense to me. You're not just going to stand there if somebody tells you they're going to stab you and proceeds to draw a knife from their belt. It's against human nature.

>devil eggvocates

Explain this at once.

Many forms of violence are committed with no hate involved at all. There have also been plenty of people saying hateful things never having committed violence. What you're really saying is that some beliefs are precursors to violence. That may be true, but there are also many people who may believe in something hateful, but also not have the will or desire to go out and commit mass acts of violence.

>You see, these people don't see themselves aligned with the right or that they are in fact racists.
In that these social justice movements create their own in-group with an ever expanding border that defines the out-group. Calling someone a witch, Nazi, fag, Gulenist, etc. in order to persecute them and consolidate your group identity is a time honored human tradition. White supremacists do this too, of course.

I can't speak to all of your posts points, but there's certainly a problem with the definition of a racist these days. Labeling everyone they don't like as a Nazi gives them something to hate, and hate allows you to justify unethical actions. As for the alienation of white people, I think this is becoming a manufactured narrative. Some parts are true, but people use it as an explanation for everything. getting into /pol/ territory.

This seems pretty cynical. Especially considering that (what I assume) is the vast majority of people either too apathetic or ethically disgusted with the idea of denying speech due to its content. You touch on the world of identity. It's something that is rapidly changing.

>Since sophistical refutation. violence is favored in the states by default over reasonable debate.
I agree that education is clearly failing, since a lot of the people who believe in OP's line of thought are either getting or in the process of getting degrees. Critical thinking may not always dissuade radicalization and extremism. Discussion in itself does, however. Which is why free speech is so important in preventing violence.

Of course. I believe you have a right to defend yourself. But user, what if that person has been saying hateful things for decades or centuries? And they have been doing so for some sort of benefit. Like selling books or winning re-elections. They want people to believe in killing you, but they don't actually do it. See: white supremacists in 21st century

You suggest that it's reasonable to strike someone for using hateful speech or a nation striking another for inciteful rhetoric. Is there not a difference between defending your nation against an attack and defending your nation against words?

forgot pic

Then why is it that Islam and muslims are excluded from hate speech investigations?

Nobody on the western world gets any significant amount of votes on the "race war now" platform

>implying
Not in any country that has to deal with terrorism, they aren't.
What, you think they let them preach antisemitism or something?

And if punching nazis is ok we should be punching communists and anarchists as well.

This

And then anyone who threatens the government in any way.

Slippery slope

Careful, that's hate speech against our glorious regime

It's pretty reductionist to apply a principle carte blanche to a vastly different geopolitical situation. I think the biggest difference here is Israel is the aggressor and they are actively conquering more territory. Aggressive speech targeted at Israel is rooted in the fact that Israel is an expansionistic power backed by the West. Aggressive speech targeting minorities is rooted in the fact that they exist in western countries and neonazis don't like that.

>nazis come
>be tolerant and let them speak
>football hooligans and rednecks rally to them
>they perform a coup and purge you
>as you die you consider how your family will be used as slaves

At least I wasn't called a commie.

>Aggressive speech targeting minorities is rooted in the fact that they exist in western countries and neonazis don't like that.
uh I'm pretty sure aggressive speech targeting Israel is 99% of the time motivated by the fact they exist in the middle east and arabs don't like that.

so it's nearly a direct parallel

>Aggressive speech targeting minorities is rooted in the fact that they exist in western countries and neonazis don't like that.
I think immigration creates vast social problems, makes communities unsafe and causes fiscal strain.
>ree ree nazi hate speaker!