There are often bad people on both (or all sides). Not sure of your point here.
I think you need to read more about the Black Panthers. Here is what the SPLC says about the group.
The New Black Panther Party is a virulently racist and antisemitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers. ... Founded in Dallas, the group portrays itself as a militant, modern-day expression of the black power movement. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-h...-panther-party
No, the Black Panthers did not really dissolve. Instead they morphed into the “New” version of the same thing. See above post.
It seems they didn’t:
“The Huey Newton Foundation, former chairman and co-founder Bobby Seale, and members of the original Black Panther Party have insisted that this New Black Panther Party is illegitimate and they have strongly objected to it by stating that there "is no new Black Panther Party".” (Wiki)
So now you change the example. You clearly said that you were talking about someone who ‘call you to your face a "filthy Jew"’. I was addressing the exact scenario you gave.
Changing the scenario is a ‘gotcha’ technique… it’s a logical fallacy.
I didn’t change he my example. You wanted to know how one would know someone was being racist if they didn’t speak English, I gave you a DIFFERENT example to explain how.
Excuse me. DO NOT twist what I have said. I have never said that it is important to protect anti-racist/antisemitic behavior.
It’s about protecting free speech, racism/antisemitism.
What? Is there supposed to be a difference in these two sentences?
I have never said that we need hate speech. What I have said is that free speech allows for people to say and believe hateful things. No one can control what other people think. Controlling speech does not stop them from hating.
I don’t need anyone to stop people from hating me (though it would be nice if they did), I just need some kind of laws to prevent people from throwing insults at me because I would feel threatened. Anyone would.
Ok this is the crux: why do you believe eliminating hate/racist speech would have any effect on ‘freedom of speech’?
I mean it’s like with anything: you need to learn it to use responsibly. I don’t understand who would disagree with the idea that using racist speech is NOT a responsible way of using speech? It seems you guys got yourselves into a logical pretzel here
Or how would one ‘use racist speech against me’ if someone else got in power? Racist speech is racist speech.
Like I wrote, it’s standard everywhere in Europe and we seem to be coping? Why do you (general you) NEED to throw insults at someone?
Yep, and they are frightening. See in Nazi Germany, they had laws about what a person can say. It was considered hate speech against the Aryan race to say anything in support of Jews. What you use against others will someday be used against you when someone else gains power.
Well, no, it’s not the same. How is saying something IN DEFENCE of a race the same as saying something racist? That’s kind of the opposite by all normal definitions...
Look at here in the US. There are case after case of false hate crimes. Smollett is the most visible case.
That’s ONE case. And it’s not a very good one because Smollett basically attacked himself, and not some other race, if that’s even what happened. He was never found guilty or convicted in the end so you can’t really use him as an example.
The paranoia of not being able to (legally) say racist stuff. On the list of worries, thus seems pretty far down the list in my book...Hence my confusion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk