It did not use too, but it is hard for me to tell where/when the shift happened. All I know for sure is that anyone with mildly stronger views on 1st amendment are called speech absolutists. It is extra annoying, because 'hate speech' is mostly recently made up term to stifle free speech AND, more importantly, does not exist anywhere in US constitution.

<< Like y’all, it isn’t that hard to expressly minority opinions without being toxic or hateful.

You can, but it becomes a game of using language that it is harder to pinpoint ( hence silliness like Xi banning 8 for infinity ). All the while majority opinion can be as hateful as is deemed necessary ( and no one complains because it is the majority ) creating yet another echo-chamber we so sorely need.

FWIW, this trend is now being challenged.

edit: I like calling spade a spade. You can dislike it all you want, but I am personally less and less willing to comply with other person's sensibilities[1].

[1]https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763...

> because 'hate speech' is mostly recently made up term to stifle free speech AND, more importantly, does not exist anywhere in US constitution

Which is why dirty commie liberals like me want to get a national hate speech law passed just like other countries have.

    Canada (which passed in the 1989)
    Ireland (passed in 1989)
    New Zeland (passed in 1993)
    Germany, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, UK, Iceland, Denmark

So I don't know your definition of recent is but it's been around for a bit. And the term "free speech absolutist" just another instance of a very deep rooted fundamental difference between red vs blue which is freedom vs liberty. It crops up all over the place: freedom from vs freedom to, equality vs equity. Both sides actually want free speech, the blue side just argues that speech is more free when it's not stifled by hate.

<< just like other countries have.

I moved from the old country partly cuz of Lèse-majesté laws regarding ruling elite and clergy. Forgive me, but other countries having X type laws does not automatically constitute a valid argument to enact anything similar here. I now personally see it as an indirect way to circumvent original framework of this country having failed to do it directly.

In short, I am going to use a very, very old argument. If everyone jumped off of a bridge, would you do it too?

<< is more free when it's not stifled by hate.

Fascinating statement and I would love you to elaborate further, because to me it is contradictory.

Freedom of speech is called freedom of speech for a reason. It is not called freedom with asterisk to account for other person's perception of your communication. That is not freedom. It is the opposite of freedom. Frankly, what you are proposing inevitably results in an echo chamber. It is cool if that if it is what you want. It is not what I want.

You seem reasonable. I am willing to engage. Convince me 'free speech' is more free when it is restricted.

I know I will 100% regret posting anything remotely viewed as political here but this...

Both sides actually want free speech, the blue side just argues that speech is more free when it's not stifled by hate.

Is the most alarming doublethink I have seen in some time.

I can't speak for other people but I'm not gonna go after you or anything. It's not unreasonable or anything to see freedom as in liberty as contradictory in nature, people say the same thing about the paradox of tolerance or tragedy of the commons. It's one of those things things if you say viewing freedom from a systems perspective is invalid then its the natural conclusion.

I don't really see it as doublethink. There's plenty of examples were rules make people more free. Our whole system of laws is based on that idea.

I can drive on public roads and get where I want to quickly and safely because we all follow traffic laws. I have greater freedom to travel because there are rules.

I can mostly (well during the day at least, give it up for being a woman) walk around freely and completely defenseless because of the laws about assault, murder, and theft.

Right now we're on a forum where good discussion can be had because the mods will drop the banhammer if you start posting hate. If you know that posting anything about a controversial topic or just being a person who's identity is controversial at the moment will bring out a tidal wave of green accounts hurling insults against, you likely wouldn't post. Would you feel comfortable existing in the public sphere as a trans person if when you tweet you about any topic you got a hundred replies telling you to kill yourself already? Would you want to hang out in an IRC channel where any time you talk someone says, "shut up woman, get back to the kitchen?"

If you believe your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins then whether you think it's right to restrict hate speech or not I think there should at least be some recognition that my position is at least logically consistent because I see hate speech as an act that restricts others' speech.

<< Would you want to hang out in an IRC channel where any time you talk someone says, "shut up woman, get back to the kitchen?"

You, an individual who does not want to see this can set ignore on that someone.

<< logically consistent because I see hate speech as an act that restricts others' speech.

It is consistent if you accept the logic leap made to assume restriction on speech somehow enhances it. Personally, I am not convinced, because I think you confuse safety ( or mental comfort ) with freedom.

Maybe the word freedom has become too overloaded with meaning in English language. Maybe we should use something else:

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"

Also, as a very practical measure, even if we do assume that hate speech actually does what it is supposed to do ( identify hate and remove hateful content ), do you really think it is smart to hide it from public view? And we did not even touch that 'hate speech' has recently come, not unlike nazis' to mean 'anything I don't like'.

I find it funny you bring up Ukraine in this conversation, it is considered the 2nd most corrupt country in Europe only behind Russia[1], has a long history of far-right ideologies [2]. And recently during this conflict have supported multiple groups that use literal Nazi imagery, most notably the Azov Regiment, which the Ukraine government are telling us are totally not Nazis despite using a bunch of imagery(such as the Black Sun and the Wolfsangel) that would likely get you arrested in some of the other countries you mentioned. [3]

[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/corruption-index?c... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Brigade

> If you are against gay marriage

I didn't use being against "gay marriage" as the example though. I used being against "gay people" as the example.

Oops, I wasn't referencing anything specific when I typed this up. I can see how that is confusing. But yes, I agree with you. I won't say that there's no way to be against gay people without being hateful but it feels like an incredibly tough needle to thread.

> Like y’all, it isn’t that hard to expressly minority opinions without being toxic or hateful. I express minority opinions constantly and have never once even been worried about the banhammer.

I've been banned from several subreddits for simply disagreeing with majority views, and pretty much every time it was in a neutral or respectful tone.

-----

PS: the entire concept of "toxic" seems "new age-y" and pseudo-religious. People refer to things being toxic as a substitute for "evil" and "taboo" - stuff that brings uncomfortable or negative associations, and in this manner they are embedding their projection of a civil religion onto others, which is an act of aggression in itself in a medium that is supposed not to have such rules.

Note that they say "toxic" and not just "rude" which would imply a certain common, traditional culture that most people would be expected to know and to some extent abide by. Toxic takes the place of the figure of "rudeness", "bad manners" and "heresy" but instead of based off a longstanding tradition, culture and religion, based of a newfangled atheist civil religion that a lot of people simply don't accept or don't want to play ball with. Their very presence and their discourse is seen as contaminating society, thus "toxic" - this is exactly equivalent to the moral worldview of a religious fanatic.

And those "heretics" are dealt with with medieval intolerance as there is no discussion to be had on these "values" from their point of view. You see in this people the fervour, hatred and emotional response you'd expect from an inquisitor who just witnessed wanton heresy or a taboo being broken, and that is exactly how more often than not mods behave in these platforms. Their interest in expanding their ideology and protecting themselves and others from heretics motivates them to put a lot of free labour in these endeavours, which is hard to compete with.