Do You Like Freedom More Than You Hate Hate?

Another Canadian example of the encroachment on individual liberties in the name of eliminating “hate speech.” The subject is a change to the Canadian Human Rights Act to “add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.”* Link

Like lots of my international examples here, the specifics are not important unless you live in Canada…but the author clearly “gets” this: 

The main fear that is instilled in me is that the list of what is labeled as ‘hate speech’ will not end here. You simply cannot ban the use or refusal of words that may offend people. This is partly the reason why our generation of snowflakes does not know how to engage in a proper debate; because they do not think that you should be able to say anything that may remotely offend them.

This is where this turns from comical to worrying. I fear that these ‘hate speech’ laws will continue to add new classifications of what is hateful depending on the party in power. This means that, in theory, a few decades in the future if you have an opinion that directly disagrees with the party in power, that opinion could be labeled as hateful and potentially be censored.

I added a paragraph break because I’m an elementary teacher, and I like doing that sort of stuff. — Dave

The point isn’t that conservatives like to be hateful, and progressives want to stop people from hating. I don’t know too many people who like hate.

I just like freedom more.


*Odd thought. Do Canadian laws typically have the word Canadian in them? Can you be any more insecure?

This entry was posted in Free Speech, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Do You Like Freedom More Than You Hate Hate?

  1. onwyrdsdream says:

    I’m fairly concerned as someone learning German how these people insisting on adding a bunch of new genders how they’re going to compensate me when they end up adding 500,000 new words to that language. In English, the gender of your pronoun doesn’t do much to the rest of the sentence. There is no real concept of classes having a gender. “Dog” isn’t a masculine or feminine word. In German, every noun is masculine, feminine, or neutral, and it affects pretty much every word that comes in contact with it. I assume they wouldn’t be satisfied in that language with just changing pronouns. Surely they’ll decide that cats are broadly a Zir and cities are obviously a xim. I mean, just think about how many forms of “the” there will end up being!

    Personally, I don’t think it’s wrong to dislike someone who makes you do more work without compensating you for it. Being forced to remember that a few special snowflakes want to have an entirely different and unusual set of pronouns with their own accompanying grammar be used… Being forced to remember the various forms of Xir.. that is work. If I don’t like you, I’m not going to put in that kind of work. And if you make me put in that kind of work before I get to know you, I’m NEVER going to like you. So.. I somewhat find these people with these instances to be adding a special barrier to themselves demanding the vast majority of people not like them.

    I too take a certain amount of pride in walking to a different drum. But I’m still walking. I’m not trying to row across dry land.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. So this is a takings issue? Very creative take.


    • onwyrdsdream says:

      I am not a lawyer for a reason. Though the reason is largely that I don’t like people very much and hate memorization. If I can’t solve it with a truth table or ohm’s law, it doesn’t really need solving in the first place. 😉


  3. Rain says:

    the idea that there are things you can’t say because it’s “hate” speech, along with the idea that now there are things you MUST say because abnormal people want others to agree with/support their abnormality, is like strangling the right of free speech while at the same time stabbing it with butcher knives…

    speech is the outward manifestation of thoughts, thinking and ideas, if one isnt free to manifest their thoughts/thinking/ideas thru speech deemed as hate/harmful/offensive, then isnt the real point that those thoughts/ideas are also hate/harmful/offensive??

    using the power of the state to control speech is just using the power of the state to attempt to control how people think, Thought crime isnt just a fictional trope anymore.

    Jordan Peterson lays it down much clearer than I ever could, I highly suggest watching any of his debates/lectures on the subject.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s