I fully respect the Westboro Baptist Church

[Wahrheit]

Okay, but you didn't answer my question.

[Shradow]

What's wrong with hate speech?

 

Is this a legitimate question?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Okay, but you didn't answer my question.

 

Whether my answer satisfied you has nothing to do with whether I answered your question, which I did. 

 

Is this a legitimate question?

 

I should hope so. 

[Simping For Hina]

The problem with hate speech is that is an manner of attack toward people or a group. Regardless of direction or not, it is still harmful to people and their way of life. There is nothing constructive, there is nothing beneficial, there is nothing that it does to influence lives for the better. It is like yelling fire in a movie theater, when there is no fire. Not entirely like the scenario, more like the aftermath. You are setting up a problem that throws people into disarray while they usually aren't being troubled. Less effect toward rampage, but still an act toward bringing people down and throwing things into disarray.

 

Any attack is immature and heinous, as it is conflicting to a potential to grow and benefit society as a group instead of isolating it. Hate speech is nothing more than the drastic need of pushing people away for the mannerism that becomes associated with them, which is nothing good and ignorant.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Could someone with unspoken hatred, wherever it comes from, overcome it without making it known? Would it not be better for a person with hatred to make it known through speech, rather than through violent action?

 

Is it truly productive to live unchallenged, untroubled, and forever free from knowledge of others' frustrations with us? I see hatred as a form of recognition and acknowledgement, and hate speech as the means by which it is communicated, as something that can result in a more profound understanding between two parties. It does nothing to curb hatred to force suppression of it where it exists, or to pretend it away. 

[Makο]

 It is like yelling fire in a movie theater, when there is no fire. Not entirely like the scenario, more like the aftermath. You are setting up a problem that throws people into disarray while they usually aren't being troubled. Less effect toward rampage, but still an act toward bringing people down and throwing things into disarray.

I take a bit of issue with this statement. The difference between "hate speech" in general and yelling fire in a movie theater, saying "there's a bomb!" at an airport terminal, etc, is that for the latter two, there is immediate, physical impacts on people and situations, that many very well end with injury, monetary loss, or even death. This is why it's not allowed. But if I-and please excuse my callousness- called you a n*gger right now, what happens?

 

That's right, nothing. Burn the gays, I'm glad your soldier son is dead, God Hates f**s. All of this stuff does approximately nothing except project how much of a cockbite you are. Sure, you can be offended, and there can be societal ramifications to saying stuff like that (as there should be), but by saying it's setting up some sort of "negative societal impact" or "will bring people into disarray" is just... a weird argument to make. Is anyone defending the content of their speech? I should hope not, and I haven't seen anything but a constant lambasting of them and their ideas. By your logic, anything negative towards anything can bring about this societal decay.

 

I respect their hustle, I respect their right to express their ideas, I think everything that comes out of their mouth reeks harder than my local dump, and I, in turn, completely ignore everything they say. As you said, what they say has no value, and if something has no value, no benefit, and doesn't cause immediate harm to people, why even register it in the first place.

 

"Oh, WBC is saying something stupid again. I didn't see that one coming."

[Wahrheit]

I take a bit of issue with this statement. The difference between "hate speech" in general and yelling fire in a movie theater, saying "there's a bomb!" at an airport terminal, etc, is that for the latter two, there is immediate, physical impacts on people and situations, that many very well end with injury, monetary loss, or even death. This is why it's not allowed. But if I-and please excuse my callousness- called you a n*gger right now, what happens?

 

That's right, nothing. Burn the gays, I'm glad your soldier son is dead, God Hates f**s. All of this stuff does approximately nothing except project how much of a cockbite you are. Sure, you can be offended, and there can be societal ramifications to saying stuff like that (as there should be), but by saying it's setting up some sort of "negative societal impact" or "will bring people into disarray" is just... a weird argument to make. Is anyone defending the content of their speech? I should hope not, and I haven't seen anything but a constant lambasting of them and their ideas. By your logic, anything negative towards anything can bring about this societal decay.

 

I respect their hustle, I respect their right to express their ideas, I think everything that comes out of their mouth reeks harder than my local dump, and I, in turn, completely ignore everything they say. As you said, what they say has no value, and if something has no value, no benefit, and doesn't cause immediate harm to people, why even register it in the first place.

 

"Oh, WBC is saying something stupid again. I didn't see that one coming."

It's arguable that they are a worse loss for society than the fire-in-a-movie-theater example.

 

In fact, because the harm done is less obvious, and over a longer period of time, it's more difficult to detect and attribute, so there's no deterrence keeping them from exceeding the socially optimal level of activity.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I think society's perfectly fine at defending itself and doesn't need you or anyone else to do it. 

[Makο]

It's arguable that they are a worse loss for society than the fire-in-a-movie-theater example.

 

In fact, because the harm done is less obvious, and over a longer period of time, it's more difficult to detect and attribute, so there's no deterrence keeping them from exceeding the socially optimal level of activity.

Wait, so are you saying that because they're allowed to say what they say, over a long period of time (say, +50 years), they will become an actual threat? Are you implying we should stop what they're saying now on these grounds?

 

I do not like that precedent. Not one bit.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Is there really a correlation between outspokenness and bad things happening? 

[Wahrheit]

Wait, so are you saying that because they're allowed to say what they say, over a long period of time (say, +50 years), they will become an actual threat? Are you implying we should stop what they're saying now on these grounds?

 

I do not like that precedent. Not one bit.

I didn't say threat, I said net cost.

[Makο]

I didn't say threat, I said net cost.

Net cost to what? Society? Morals? Average brainpower of the individual? What you're saying is so nebulous and undefined. Would you mind elaborating on what you're trying to communicate?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Until the end of all time, which has given no indication of happening any time soon, costs and benefits can't be put into a definitive context and life is full of surprises. 

[Dad]

I still don't get the point of this thread.  Nor why it was started in debates, unless it was to debate 'morals of the WBC' or something tiny and stupid along those lines.  There's little to no actual discussion here.

[Makο]

While I'll agree that the initial premise is a bit

 

uh

 

weird? It generated some good discussion, so that's always worth it.

[Dad]

It's semantics.  The "debate" is stagnant.  It's not going anywhere.  I'll let you have at it for now, but this is not something foresee being open for long.  It's just like the abortion thread.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

It's semantics.  The "debate" is stagnant. 

 

Kinda like the section, eh? We make our little attempts. At least it got the prestigious accolade of HOT

 

Granted, there isn't a way to guarantee a debate or even discussion will happen, but this is currently a "place for debates and controversial topics" either way. 

 

As it stands, these are the current issues raised:

 

Should hate speech such as that employed by the WBC be covered under free speech? 

Is WBC-style hate speech ever justifiable and/or constructive? 

Is WBC-style hate speech in fact harmful to society? 

and of course

Does this topic deserve to be open?

 

For which I'd put it to you that there aren't rules against stagnation, and I don't think it makes much sense to call a day-old topic that's generated as much as this thread has stagnant.

[Delibirb]

As I understood the topic, it wasn't about whether this should be allowed, but whether it deserves respect.

 

Technically, this sort of thing is and needs to be allowed, in terms of the law. Social ramifications are expected, naturally, but first world governing bodies cannot infringe on these rights if they want to efficiently and effectively uphold a society and its regulations, while affording their citizens rights to assure them that the regulations are necessary and reasonable. This much cannot be, and indeed is not being, contested.

 

It is the fact they are using their afforded rights to argue against other groups of people having rights that is grounds enough to not respect them or any part of their usage of said rights.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I don't respect them.

 

I respect the 1st amendment, which affirms that I have to listen to them speak

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Regardless, my problem is that their rhetoric is generally using the rights they're afforded to try to deny the rights of other peoples. 

 

Hypothetically speaking, to voice an opinion that certain people don't deserve rights isn't going to stop them from having them, and while effecting legislature to deny people basic human rights does not deserve respect, I believe those that have such opinions (that certain people don't deserve rights) are in fact right to voice them and deserve respect for doing so, rather than suppressing those beliefs only to manifest them through other means. 

 

The foremost reason I respect the WBC is for being non-violent. 

 

I will now for the first time in this thread defend the WBC's views where I feel they are misunderstood as they don't have a voice here, not because they need it, but for the sake of clarification for those who are curious. The WBC does not have a stated agenda to deny rights or twist people's arms through legislature. Their message is primarily to raise awareness of what they consider true, and that those hearing what they consider to be the truth will inwardly change as a result. In the WBC's FAQ, the following is their stated purpose:

 

 

What are you trying to accomplish?

First, our goal is to preach the Word of God to this crooked and perverse generation. By our words, some will repent. By our words, some will be condemned. Whether they hear, or whether they forbear, they will know a prophet has been among them. It is the solemn job of a believing Christian to preach the Gospel to every creature, and warn them to flee from the wrath to come. "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!" I Corinthians 9:16. Second, our goal is to glorify God by declaring His whole counsel to everyone. Third, we hope that by our preaching some will be saved. As Jude said, on some have compassion, making a difference, but others save with fear.

[Tentacruel]

I don't respect them, but I fully support the first amendment.

 

I don't fear at all consequences of letting them screech their idiocy.  Everybody knows they're crazy.  I do fear neckbeard atheist bastards who want to be able to shut down free speech and would stop at people as extreme as WBC.

 

I firmly believe that to allow freedom of speech you must do so without exception.  What's stupid and what's not is too subjective.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I wonder how much of the hatred is actually cause of the Bible Text and how much is due to a large portion of the gay community actively being disruption in public *glares at pride parades*

 

I'll suck a dick, but I swear to god if you twerk in BDSM gear in front of my kid  on the street, we're gonna have some words

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Twerking in BDSM gear in the street was much more respectable when it actually stood for something transgressive. Nowadays, it's largely protected and is simply a safe, decadent revel. That's why more people do it nowadays. 

[Dad]

Since when did twerking in BDSM gear in the street stand for anything transgressive?  Was that actually a thing?  I'm being absolutely serious.  This is the first I've ever heard of this.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Since when did twerking in BDSM gear in the street stand for anything transgressive?  Was that actually a thing?  I'm being absolutely serious.  This is the first I've ever heard of this.

Sexuality should be kept private IMO. 

 

Yes, there's a lot of behaviors like that in pride parades that publicize sex