- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 22,676
- Reaction score
- 4,282
- Location
- DC Metro
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
emphasis mine
That's fine. You seem to be basing the amount you are offended on what is going on inside the head of the person doing the speaking (i.e. whether they are hating). I don't. I base my level of offense on what is likely to happen as a result of the speaking, and I couldn't really care less what is going on inside the head of the speaker. In my view, hate speech doesn't even need to be spoken by someone who is actually hating, for it to be hate speech.
Your view allows you to be significantly offended at any speech where you can speculate that the person speaking is being hateful. Mine allows me to be offended where I can speculate that the effect will be harmful.
Thus, I end up offended on behalf of people who are oppressed. You should end up defending the relatively powerful from the relatively powerless. I am sure your defense of them is sorely needed.
Why are you assuming that feel the need to defend either of them? I feel that hate speech regardless of the source is wrong. I would be equally offended by any member of a group that it could be said I belong to as I would by any member of a group that it could be said I don't belong too. It's about time we as humans learn to not hate people we disagree with. In my mind, doing something specifically because it will be found to be offensive by the target group is wrong.