For a long time referring to ____ race (or women, etc) as having a naturally lower intelligence was "an objective statement of reality" to the vast majority of people, so I don't that a compelling argument for defining hate speech.

Especially in this case where it was targeted at an individual, and not just a conservative blog post on transgenderism being linked to etc. Notice that Ben Shapiro et al have not been banned.

> I don't that a compelling argument for defining hate speech.

I'm not trying to define hate speech, I'm saying that there's no hate there to begin with and so all we're left with is an argument over reality (or the terms we use to describe it): is a woman an adult human female, or is there something else we have to consider?

In your counterexamples, black people/women are being declared strictly inferior. That's not the case here - Levine isn't lessened by being an adult human male.

If you want something censored, the onus should be on you to prove that it is hateful, not on someone else to prove that it is not. For that, you need to define hate speech and explain how the Babylon Bee's post fits that definition alongside the examples you just gave.

> For a long time referring to ____ race (or women, etc) as having a naturally lower intelligence was "an objective statement of reality"

It still is, if we're talking about averages. Extremely well studied too.

Astroturfing 101.

The fact that your comment is being downvoted is why we need more free speech. The above comment is simply a biological fact. Many people are stuck in echo chambers that make them think their fringe opinions are from the majority, Twitter enables this enormously