There's no such thing as "hate" speech. The label is a tool to suppress speech the accusers don't agree with and I've never encountered anyone who uses the term to do so objectively.

That's quite the claim and I don't really think it's defensible. Hate speech definitely exists. Your claim is equivalent to saying there exists no speech meant to demean or harm others based on race, gender, religion, etc. Why does this kind of speech need to be protected from removal? Surely we wouldn't tolerate it in this forum, why should it be tolerated in others?

> Hate speech definitely exists.

In the USA, it does not exist, in the sense that freedom of speech is absolute, even when you're demeaning or "harming" others with your words. The only way in which it is limited is when it is directly inciting action as a call to violence.

In Canada, hate speech laws exist, but again are designed around the case where a reasonable person would view the speaker as making credible threats and inciting violence.

Neither country prohibits you from saying mean things about groups you don't like. Certainly neither country prohibits you from saying true-but-uncomfortable, even scientifically backed things that are banned outright on most platforms for being hateful.

> Hate speech definitely exists.

There’s plenty of stuff that you and I would both look at and say, “yep, that’s definitely hate speech”. There’s lots of stuff that I might call hate speech under any definition of it but you might think is perfectly reasonable. Since you’re defending censoring hate speech, I suspect there’s even more stuff that you would call hate speech but I would think is perfectly reasonable. And as we’ve seen over and over again, once you allow for censorship/cancellation based on “hate”, the definition of “hate” grows without bound.

Speech that's meant to demean or harm others? Who judges the intentions and what criteria is used to make that determination?

I find the claim that there are not clear double standards within this context to be indefensible.

Is wearing a MAGA hat in public hate speech?

Is telling someone their opinion doesn't count because of "white privileged" or "the patriarchy" hate speech?

What about calling evangelical's red neck climate change deniers?

You see, I've never encountered anyone that's vocal in this realm to apply their own standards logically and objectively.

Do you think Cohen and his movies are hate speech? They are full of attacks, demonization, and mocking people based on their ethnicity, religion etc.

I think your claim that hate speech is indefensible. Because in order to show it exists you would have to define what it is and what it isn’t entirely, and not allow that definition to expand. But that’s not really possible, so really what does exist is people who try to call things hate speech things and then make others conform to that.. but what do you do when they start defining legitimate criticism as hate speech? You can’t do anything if they’re enforcing things by law (ie guns).

> Surely we wouldn't tolerate it in this forum, why should it be tolerated in others?

Because this is the difference between moderation and freedom of speech. It is fine to say that some things are not acceptable to say within a particular forum; it is not fine to stop people saying those things everywhere.

Yeah, I don't agree with people advocating for violence against me. That's why I don't want it in my social circles. What's wrong with that? Why do you support hate speech? Do you agree with it?

I agree. But I'm not sure why Cohen's career is not hate speech.

Because he's pointing out hate speech by lampooning it. Very different

Maybe it's because the definition of hate speech is subjective.

Maybe you shouldn't limit what other people say because of your subjective views. Moreso if you define hate speech as "The incomfortable truth that I don't want to hear" and not "insults or objectively proved deceit"

I'm such a dumbass. I wanted to reply to the comment above this one in the comment hierarchy.

Duty, according to whom?

Couldn’t agree more. I find the defense of Cohen here bewildering, and the fact that you are downvoted sad.

My take:

1)It is a failing of our public education system if hate speech is a problem.

2)There is a significant difference between targeted hate speech and generalized hate speech, also between speech in public and private.(not to say its ever a good quality) 2b) Private speech should never be controlled under any circumstance. It’s simply unethical.

3)Just because you deliver messages between people doesn’t mean you need to preform SIG/INT on it.

In his speech, Cohen said that 2/3 of millennials don't know what Auschwitz is [0]. Our public education system already failed (or so it seems).

[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/auschwitz-...

Sorry. I don’t buy that study. I can’t believe that statistic from personal experience, and find the conducting authority partial. And nothing is stoping us from educating adults, ever heard of The Ad Council?

I also don't buy the study. Further, any questioning about knowledge of Auschwitz should also include questioning about knowledge of other 20th century atrocities, such as the British suppression of the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya, the Nanjing Massacre by the Japanese army in China, the Greek, Assyrian and Armenian Genocides under the Ottoman Empire, the Famine-Genocide in Ukraine, the expulsion and killings of Germans at the end of WWII, the Cambodian Genocide by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, the East Timor and West Papua Genocides in Indonesia, the Anfal Genocide in Iraqi Kurdistan, etc. I would guess that Auschwitz is better known than most other 20th century atrocities.