So my university had some bigot visit the school to give some speech about some bullshit, probably something bigoted. I didn't go, but a group of BLM and feminist groups protested during the speech. It was a kind of big deal, and people made a fuss about it.
Most people berated the protesters for the way they handled their actual protesting, but the biggest slap in the face that I have literally been reading and hearing is how these protesters are anti-free speech or anti-intellectualism. The issue I have with this argument is: why the fuck should I be required to enter into a debate with someone who doesn't believe in my ability to self determine? In general unrelated to this instance, why should I be expected to accept speech that would essentially say my life matters less? Or my achievements are less?
Why should hate speech be protected? Why should those who preach hate be allowed to have a platform?
As a Puerto Rican I've become really tired having to enter debates over things like this. I'm not sure this makes all that much sense because it just came to mind, and I'm typing it on my phone.
As a minority in the United States, the default question asked of you is "we're in charge and things are hunky dory, convince us there's a problem." Which doesn't sound particularly evolved until you consider that the default position throughout history has been "we're in charge, shut the fuck up." "Hate speech" is what you call "minority speech" that you find reprehensible. 100 years ago anything you said to attack my privileged position of power and implied superiority would probably be branded "hate speech." That your position is morally and factually superior doesn't matter a whit; my instinct to tell you to shut the fuck up and stop disturbing my Aryan idyll would be numerically superior. That's the issue with base-level democracy: majority rule does not protect minority determinism. "Free speech" means allowing all dissenting opinions to exist. Quoth Aaron Sorkin: My wife is helping her state organization rewrite all of their literature in gender-neutral language. The goal is to be inclusive of everyone, regardless of whether or not you are currently the same gender as the one you were born with. By contrast, I stopped hanging out with some of the rednecks in my high school because they considered queer-bashing to be a legitimate Friday night distraction. One of them still wants to be Facebook friends with me. It has never been easy to be transgender, and I doubt it ever will be... but the transgender movement has made strides in no small part because they've been allowed to state a minority opinion. In 20 years, we've gone from beating up the outsider to putting them on the cover of Vanity Fair because we protect the rights of everyone to say what they believe. We don't make it easy, though. And we likely never will. And both sides will accuse the other side of playing by the wrong rules, or being anti-this and anti-that, and there is often truth to this but that will never prevent the other side from deploying similar tactics. Hate speech should be protected because every inch of social progress was hate speech to somebody. In 1860, Theodore Parker said that slavery would eventually be abolished because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. In 1967, Martin Luther King paraphrased him: 150 years ago, black people were property. 50 years ago, black people were civil rights leaders. Now? black people lead the free world. And us uncomfortable white devils will still try to label everything they say as "hate speech." Not all minority speech is worth listening to. Lots of it is full of hate and devoid of value. You have to let it stand anyway. Any instrument used to silence hatred can also be used to silence truth.America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
...did you even read his comment? Or intend to contribute anything other than unnecessary passive-aggression?
You know, I was of similar opinion when reading the line, though it didn't register as sharply. It's a bold claim: to say that now, "black people lead the free world". I get the sentiment: the world in general has made a big step when Barack Obama was elected because it has shown a volume of acceptance previously unseen in one of the world's most... let's say, sharply-divided countries, opinions-wise. I'd agree without much hesitation had it said "a black man leads a free country" (even then... but hey) or "black people have the opportunity to lead the free world". I'm not trying to be racist or to pick up a fight, but I'd like to clear something up.
Just to clear things up more, in the US we call the President "The Leader of the Free World." Or at least they say that on TV all the time. We don't actually think that's the case, but it's a respectful way to refer to him to show his power and prestige.
You have the right to control what you hear. But no one has the right to control what others hear or choose to hear. Those who preach hate must be allowed an equal platform as anyone else because the definition of "hate" changes depending on who is using it and the people "in charge" - in gov't - who'd inevitably be responsible for defining hate - change by the second. You cannot trust that "only good people who have similar definitions of 'hate' as me would be elected!" because, well, based on your post, I think it's safe to assume that isn't the case for you in life right now. (Or me neither, not picking fights here.)Why should hate speech be protected? Why should those who preach hate be allowed to have a platform?
From an academic and intellectual standpoint I get it. I understand the danger of censoring people, but the emotional side of myself is very exhausted having to wave off pretty constant attacks and jokes about my culture, race, my access to education. My favorite is speaking on behalf of the entire spanish community in almost every instance that it is brought up. My favorite insult is that "Well, you're not the spanish I'm referring to because you are educated and employed". I honestly am not directing any of this anger towards you because you have a legitimate argument, but there is a part of me that is unbelievably exhausted.
From my perspective it sounds like: "you are not a real arab. You are open-minded, atheist, educated and only half arabic" So I don't qualify as someone who represents the arabic minority in Israel, so I get treated like an ashkenazi jew. At some point it goes so far that people start making racist jokes about arabs while forgetting that I am in the room because "I don't count".you're not the spanish I'm referring to because you are educated and employed
It's hard. It sucks, right? You don't want to become "that angry person." "That angry person to whom everything is about race (gender)(religion)." You don't want to drive people away from you, you don't want to seem like an angry person, you don't want to be an angry person. But the alternative is that you allow things which should not be allowed to stand, stand. I understand your exhaustion. I'm sorry. It sucks. But it's either be exhausted, and speak up (and even then, over time, you will learn you have to pick and choose) - or become an accomplice via witness.
I'm just really emotional about this right now. I think its painful coming to the realization that this is what will come to define my life. Fighting endlessly day and night against stuff like this with literally no end in sight. Thank you for you words though. Really it means so much.
I definitely feel like that sometimes. When I sink too deep into that though I try to be more positive. Did you read the "crazy eyes" Ama? It was really eye opening for me. She talks about racism, feminism, pretty much all the trigger words for an internet shit show. But she was so nice, positive, and friendly people were more open to her message. Looking at the good not only makes me less miserable but it helps me have real discussions with people.
- Whoopi Goldberg We haven't come nearly far enough. We still have an impossibly long ways to go. I'm sorry that a fundamental tenet of your social life is having to roll your eyes and remind people that it's not cool to slag minorities for being minorities. I agree: it sucks that you have to fight the constant battle of reminding the less enlightened that you are fully 100% human, as is everyone else whose ethnographic makeup deviates from straight white protestant male. But I take it as a real sign of progress that you feel comfortable picking those fights. I think we're making great leaps forward in creating a world where you have the confidence to raise these issues. I think the fact that you're comfortable sharing your discomfort and calling people on their bullshit illustrates that the world is a more egalitarian place for you than it was for your parents. I grew up with Polack jokes. They were just a thing. They were perfectly okay. They were allowed to let fly because "Polack" was this incomprehensible, alien abstraction we'd never meet. The adults knew that "Polack" meant "spic" but us kids didn't. That the white folx were making ethnic jokes secretly about a culture that had been around 200 years longer than the United States didn't matter a whit; they were Masters of the Universe and if they wanted to tell a joke based on a nondenominational negative stereotype that the dog whistle listeners knew was about their coworkers, they could do it. It was the '80s. When I got to college the racism was less subtle. There was a girl in my dorm. Think she was Catalan Spanish, not any sort of Latin American. Some other girls in the dorm decided to buy a bunch of cans of beans and leave them by her door. Someone had to explain the insult to me - I'd never heard of a "beaner" because fuckin' A, growing up in New Mexico everyone ate beans and what sort of idiotic racist insult plays on the stereotype of what someone eats? But these girls had apparently never encountered a minority before and as a sign of solidarity, they decided to (wrongly) hit her with an insult to demonstrate how white she wasn't. It was the '90s. If that shit happened today it'd be national news. I realize it's a rough kind of progress, and I'm not trying to tell you not to be offended, mad, tired and exhausted from it. But I will point out that 20 years ago, you would have felt better sublimating your frustration than expressing it. At this rate, 20 years from now it'll be a better environment for your kids, just like your environment is a little bit better than your parents.“Well, when I was nine years old Star Trek came on. I looked at it and I went screaming through the house, ‘Come here, mum, everybody, come quick, come quick, there’s a black lady on television and she ain’t no maid!’ I knew right then and there I could be anything I wanted to be.”
I thought it meant "polish." Wikipedia does too.The adults knew that "Polack" meant "spic" but us kids didn't
It does. But in New Mexico, only the unenlightened make jokes about hispanics. The clever white people used to make jokes about "Polacks" (even the ones whose names end in "'ski") because the unspoken assumption is you're making a joke about hispanics.
The thing is, you dont, you're not the ambassador of latin america, you get to speak for yourself (barely) and thats it. be an asshole for a while or get better friends or none at all. its not as bad as it seems. (also, wtf? theres education in puerto rico. do they think its some sort of third world country?)
My comment here won't be as eloquent as some of the other responses. There's some really great discussion here. There's one issue that I feel very strongly about. Eight years ago I'd have spoken about it and debated it with someone on the opposite side. I actually flew across the country to attend a protest (still one of my prouder moments; the protest was insanely great). But over the years I've become exhausted. Some people on the other side are as stubborn as me, and I'm tired of bashing my head against the metaphorical wall. Some people on my side have different views of where we are and where we need to go; that's exhausting in a different way. Some people in the group seem to resent my involvement defending a group I'm not a part of. So I've basically stepped out of any involvement. But even if I'm uninvolved, my moral compass has not wavered. My views of what is right are just as strong. The exhaustion may change what I do, but it doesn't change what I know is right, and it won't change how I act when it matters most (on a ballet, defending someone against violence). So my point is, at least for me, it's ok to not always take up every battle. It's important to remember what's right and wrong and to know when it's vital to stand up for what's right. I think the other side only wins when we become apathetic.
Don't hate the hater. It will only make you spiteful and angry at the world. A lesson I take a long time to learn was that, whatever the views people feel strongly about (politics, racism, religion, sexual behavior, ..) does not mean they cannot be intelligent, caring and nice people otherwise. Don't listen when they talk about their hate. Don't argue with them, You wont change them. Try to get them to talk about something else. May be you like the same music, fiction book, sport team, food, etc.. If you debate them, or even just resent them, you'll be miserable. You deserve better.
I agree with your sentiment, but I'd like to make sure of something: What if they talk constantly about it and there's no way I can escape it without leaving the generally well-intent, if apathetic, group?Don't listen when they talk about their hate.
You don't have to tolerate hate speech. You can argue against it or you can go somewhere it can no longer reach you. You aren't required to engage with speech of any form, hate or otherwise. OP may feel he has a moral or personal obligation to speak up against certain kinds of hate speech. Kudos to OP, he is doing a valuable service. However, that's his choice and it's not mandated by any entity and he can opt out at any time. You aren't required to enter a debate with hate speech. You aren't required to accept hate speech. You aren't required to believe it. Hate speech is protected because it is speech, and because defining sub-types of speech into categories like "hate speech" cannot in any way be imagined as objective. And if we start only protecting subjective sub-categories of speech we are in for a much bigger world of trouble than having to hear the college religious nut go off about abortions again. War - this is honestly more directly aimed at you, tbh. You don't have to engage in free speech or provide responses to hate speech. Some would say that not reacting, that ignoring hate speech, denying it an audience, is the best thing that you can do. I don't agree. I think it is vital to speak up against perceived wrongs; we all have our own set, but for instance, say something blatantly racist or sexist in my eyesight and I'm going to call you out on it. Except you're totally right. It's exhausting. Sometimes you want to just have a conversation. Sometimes you just want to vent about your day. Sometimes you want to just feel calm, not incited to anger, not riled up. Sometimes you want to just walk away. The more standing up against hate speech you do the more exhausted you get. But you are standing up because you choose to stand up because you see an injustice and refuse to let it stand. To me that is real character. It is a person with no skin on the line other than being a witness who says, "You know what? No. I will not be a witness to this, I will not let this stand." You are standing up because you know it sucks but someone has to do it, you know someone has to do it, and you aren't going to sit on your ass looking around for "someone." You'd sit on your ass forever if you did that. Having character, having things that you as a person stand for, and then backing those morals and beliefs up with frequent refusals to tolerate those who propagate ideas and lifestyles which are completely counter to those morals? That is exhausting. Especially if you are a decent person who sees nuance in things and doesn't want to fight people all the time. Who wants to like people, give them the benefit of the doubt, who doesn't want to be seen as aggressive or antagonistic or "that fucking annoying fucker, bringing up race arguments again." (I imagine the Westboro Baptists do not find themselves particularly exhausted at the end of the day; I imagine they cackle with glee, actually.) It is exhausting to stand up for what you believe in. But the only reason you are able to do so is because of free speech. We cannot limit speech based on our feelings about the content because what will end up happening is that others will limit our speech because of our feelings and our content. We can only choose whether or not to tolerate it; to serve as an audience; to speak up, debate, or challenge it. There are users here who have left because they got tired of standing up. More's the pity: no one has stepped in to fill their shoes. And that's what happens when voices of dissent get beaten down into silence, they stepped all over, forced to repeat themselves and their arguments again and again, forced to reduce their existence to constantly arguing with different bigots over the same shit every day because guess what? There will always be more bigots. There will always be more innocent ignoramuses. It fuckin' sucks. All I can say is shoulder on and be the voice of dissent and keep being it. Because the voices of dissent are vital, and few, and necessary.
I'm traveling right now, meeting people from all over the place and while I usually speak out against intolerant speech i've toned it down a lot lately. I think it's a bit different with people of a different culture. When a super nice guy from Palestine told such and such beach is not great because it's full of pedophiles, sex trade and transexuals I didn't call him out on the fact transexuals and pedophiles don't really fit in the same category. It's sort of useless to start an argument in the hostel over that and ruin the whole night when I know i won' change anyone's mind and just create trouble. Maybe i'm wrong and should have spoken up... i'm still a bit conflicted.
When you don't want to "start an argument in the hostel and ruin the whole night" but you do want to speak up, try just speaking from your own truth, something like: Guy trying to be helpful: "The beach is not great because it's full of pedophiles, sex trade and transexuals." Elizabeth: "I'm okay with transexuals, not so ok with pedophiles."
From an American point of view maybe. For instance, in my country the Netherlands our little Trump - Geert Wilders - has been acquitted of inciting hatred against Muslims four years ago. Geert Wilders was cleared of hate charges by Dutch court eventually. It was clear, because he was attacking Islam instead of Muslims. Two years ago he started chanting for "less Moroccans", and he has to face trial again for inciting discrimination this March. I feel that in these scenarios, you are both protecting free speech but also protecting our own people against hatred.Hate speech is protected because it is speech
I would be fascinated to read about how the law defines hate speech. Law interests me as I work with it in my every-day job, and this would be something I'd never actually seen. Too bad; I don't know what my chances are of finding it in a good English translation.
Thank you for articulating the exact limit beyond which starting an argument is unreasonable. I've been looking for such a limit for quite some time now.why the fuck should I be required to enter into a debate with someone who doesn't believe in my ability to self determine?
Your public voicing of this particular opinion offends me. Take down this post. Whatever your minority opinion is, we the majority and thus the powerful, label your ineloquent spattering of language as blasphemous,l and generally irksome, hate speech. Away with any dissent of the majority opinion, for there are reasons these opinions are majority held views. Why do the minorities matter anyway? Their differing perspectives offer no rays of light to illuminate our black and white world. The inclusion of them in serious conversation merely degraded the quality of the discussion. Our groupthink mentality works best without any outside perspective influence and I'm certain with so many like minded people, we can solve many of the world's problems. Stop rocking the boat op, your opinion means nothing and we will stop at nothing to silence your offensive words.