Why is it that the left wants to control the speech of the right? Some leftists figure they can make demands down to the words we say, and the places we’re allowed to speak.
It’s because we are the barbarians. Well, they think we are.
Think of the film Braveheart. Do you think the left imagines the right to be just like the hairy, uncouth Scottish? And do they imagine themselves to be the cultured British?
[Side note. Why does almost every British in popular American television show need to be mincing, effeminate, prancy-pants? Watch ‘Turn’ on Netflix.]
The left misunderstands the right — and much of America — so badly that they think we are just a tiny word away from storming the gates.
It used to be true that both the left and right understood that words should be free, unless they incite violence. “Lets go kill some blank-ers was never alright.” Same with “I think you ought to shoot some blank-ers.”
Words which do not incite or encourage violence ought to be free.
Now, the left — and only the left — demands that people stop talking if they determine it is hate. And what is hate speech? We’ll let you know after it gets said. I’ll know it when I hear it.
An excellent essay from Shikha Dalmia about hate speech included these comparisons with our moral ‘betters’ the Europeans:
So why do I oppose official bans on hate speech? Mainly because countries with a long history of them have done no better a job than America of protecting precisely what Prof. Waldron wants — the “basic dignity and reputation” of minorities, and a far worse job than America of protecting overall free speech rights. Lets just do a brief survey of the record:
Anti-Semitism is undoubtedly much worse in continental Europe. The same is true for Islamophobia, despite its uptick in America in the Age of Trump. It took gays longer to win their rights in America than in Europe, but not because of the absence of hate speech bans. And America’s treatment of Hispanics, its dominant minority, is no worse than, say, England’s treatment of Indians and Pakistanis, its dominant minority. Blacks of course have a special, complicated history in America, but America has not needed hate speech bans to make racism unrespectable in polite company.
Countries with hate speech bans don’t have much to show by way of stopping hate and protecting minorities. But their record of protecting free speech is way worse than America’s.
Too long? Didn’t read? Hate speech restrictions do NOT lead to a better climate for minorities. Ask a European Jew. Find them fast, they’re mostly leaving because of anti-Semitism.
- treat (someone) as a child or in a way that denies their maturity in age or experience.“seeing yourself as a victim infantilizes you”
I oppose hate speech laws not because I encourage hate, but because I will not be silenced. So much of the definition of hate speech is a function of the listener. I hurt your feelings, so I must have been hateful? Please.
Hate speech laws, like safe spaces and trigger warnings actually infantilize the listener.
Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Malcolm X would be ashamed of the silly left, which tries to impose speech restrictions while simultaneously claiming emotional hurt over words.
At the same time, we should make it very clear. The right is not a powderkeg ready to explode in violence. Those bitter clingers, or deplorables…they are Americans. And like all Americans, our freedoms are important to us. We’ll peacefully bear arms, speak freely and worship as we wish long after the safe spaces and trigger warnings are gone.
We’re not who you should worry about.
Charlotte, NC. September, 2016.
Nobody here will be accused of hate speech, and they’re not giving any trigger warnings.
Image shows hints of Photoshop: note the odd physique of forearms of the two guys front and center, as well as their relationship to the white pants of the guy behind.
Germany is an example of freedom? https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/german-erdogan-insult-case/478437/
And South Africa? What an idiot,