- Joined
- Jan 8, 2017
- Messages
- 18,794
- Reaction score
- 5,161
- Location
- new zealand.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
What's the definition of a "threat" then?
Does a verbal threat of violence, without any actual physical violence, justify a violent response?
I am qiuite surprised by your comments. Do you realise that hate speech does not necessarily engineer an immediate violent response by the listner. Nor does it threaten the listener. The best practioners of it know better than to direct it at its intended victims. In fact the best use of hate speech is not to threaten with violence but to threaten with fear.
Hate speech is not just verbally abusing someone that is just someone being angry and violent. Any fool can do that.
I would suggest you google up some of goebbels speeches if you want a good example of hate speech. You will note he does not address the jews but instead the germans. You will also note that he does not incite violence against the jews. he instead gives the germans reason to fear and hate the jews. And then lets those emotions follow the natural course towards violence to the jews.
There is a big diference between verbally abusing someone to the point where they want to hit you and manipulating people to hatred towards others. The latter is hate speech, the former is just someone being a dick.