I am all for maximum universal free speech. It means that person is allowed to talk as long as that person doesnt prevent others from talking by violating them or endangering site.

I dont consider insults to be a violation of another, because they dont prevent other from talking if they want to, or just ignoring insults.

I also dont consider "hate speech" to be a problem as long as its just speech.

the calls to violence are a bit grey area because you cant really talk much about politics without justifying violence of some sort, cuz a lot of politics and all wars are literally violence.

Mal wrote:

Where Every Opinion Matters.

It's funny how the censorship is on non profane words but not on profanity at all. At the point at times disrespecting religious folks using vain language, profane language at the expense of sacred figures of religious values.

You are talking about Muhammad, right?

Honestly I feel free speech should be allowed on each platform, but I could see why certain rules are in place. For example the constitution in the U.S. allows this, but if someone owns a cite they get to make up the rules on whether they want it or not. And I wouldn’t think this is a violation of constitutional rights, but I do feel this opens the floor to something dangerous. A good example of this is how censorship how divided both sides of the political isle are currently in the U.S. Their are of course several reasons outside of this as well, but behavior scientist often note that people individuals grew up with, learned from, and surrounded themselves with are often where the majority of one’s views lay. To change long standing views discussions and gently bridging the gap is how minds typically change.

There is this notion of free speech that anything can be said anywhere, but thats not what free speech means. Free speech means the government can't go after you for government criticism or trash talking elected officials. So long as speech isnt crossing a line and endangering others somehow, government has no grounds to restrict.

Free speech doesn't mean you can stand in someone else's domain and say whatever you like. For instance, a homeowner can restrict speech in their home. A religious congregation can restrict speech on their property. Social media can restrict speech on their platform. These are all examples of private property, and the owner gets to decide what they allow.

Hey how you been?

Yeah "freedom of speech".

Yeah "freedom of speech".

I also dont consider "hate speech" to be a problem as long as its just speech.'

The problem with hate speech is it's never just "speech", since it's reflective of your beliefs and actions. If you say something like "homosexuality/being transgender is a mental disorder", congratz that's what you believe. You just admitted to treating people differently. It is speech that's reflective of how you interact with others, which is action.

Hate speech also creates a silencing effect on the groups being hated on. People see queer bashing on a website from a bunch of people and it seems to either fly under the radar or be openly accepted by the site, then they will not want to interact on the site or spend their time here. Same thing with displays of racism or other forms of discrimination.

SkepticalOne wrote:

There is this notion of free speech that anything can be said anywhere, but thats not what free speech means. Free speech means the government can't go after you for government criticism or trash talking elected officials. So long as speech isnt crossing a line and endangering others somehow, government has no grounds to restrict.

Free speech doesn't mean you can stand in someone else's domain and say whatever you like. For instance, a homeowner can restrict speech in their home. A religious congregation can restrict speech on their property. Social media can restrict speech on their platform. These are all examples of private property, and the owner gets to decide what they allow.

Very well stated, I completely agree.

I'd add that associated with the notion of "anything anywhere", there is this notion that "free speech" somehow made you immune from responsibility for what you say.

There is nothing at all implied by the term "free speech" that you aren't responsible for the consequences of what you said. If your words cause harm, if they incite violence and other illegal activities, you are responsible for the consequences that resulted from your words, "free speech" is not a defense.

The problem with hate speech is it's never just "speech", since it's reflective of your beliefs and actions. If you say something like "homosexuality/being transgender is a mental disorder", congratz that's what you believe. You just admitted to treating people differently. It is speech that's reflective of how you interact with others, which is action.

All speech can lead to action, but doesn't mean it will, so this is irrelevant.

I can say that trans people have a mental disorder while I still treat trans people just fine. Tho personally, I don't think mental disorders even exist. People literally just made it up.

Also, just to be clear, this site isn't any safe space. We are not doing any group therapy thing here. This is not a space where you can say something and receive compassion, or throw a pity party for yourself. On this site, users fight against each other's words for dopamine activation in their brain. There is no mercy for the weak!

All speech can lead to action, but doesn't mean it will

Speech is action. Saying "I believe X" is actively defending that X is true. You are making a claim to know something as fact, and that can influence people around you. It's a shitty argument because just you're just saying it's true, but reputation is an argument that people believe all the time.

Action doesn't have to be outwardly aggressive or violent to harm. Even something as small as the way you look at someone and the words you choose can hurt people. Your thoughts are your beliefs. Your beliefs guide your actions.

Also, just to be clear, this site isn't any safe space.

Interesting, when did airmax die and put you in charge?

On this site, users fight against each other's words for dopamine activation in their brain.

Or, y'know, just hang out and shoot the shit. Kill time. Maybe learn something. Play games. Talk about manga?

Speech is action. Saying "I believe X" is actively defending that X is true. You are making a claim to know something as fact, and that can influence people around you. It's a shitty argument because just you're just saying it's true, but reputation is an argument that people believe all the time.

Action doesn't have to be outwardly aggressive or violent to harm. Even something as small as the way you look at someone and the words you choose can hurt people. Your thoughts are your beliefs. Your beliefs guide your actions.

This is probably the most annoying argument against free speech I ever read. It basically amounts to "words can hurt my feelings, so words bad". And yeah, debating is a battleground, as I said. However, feelings aren't under any special protection. We are also not gonna ban speech which you think has some small chance of causing harm, because all speech in debates has a chance to cause harm.

Interesting, when did airmax die and put you in charge?

Airmax is our owner, and his will guides us on the battlegrounds of this site.

Or, y'know, just hang out and shoot the shit. Kill time. Maybe learn something. Play games. Talk about manga?

Sure, that too, but let's not forget why we are really here, and it's to put each other to shame through exchange of words. This site isn't a safe space. It never was. It never will be. Maybe we can create a special safe space on this site, I guess group therapy would be a nice addition. I love trolling group therapy chats.

The only limit on free speech which I agree to is limiting speech which aims to shame women. I believe in sexism and chivalry. I fully support discrimination based on sex and gender. If a man says something stupid, he should be put to shame immediately. But if a woman says something even more stupid, she should not be put to shame because she is a woman. Same applies to trans women, because once person admits that she is a woman or transitions into a woman, she should be protected and be treated better than men. In same way, I support women getting paid more than men even if they do a worse job. If a woman commits rape or murder, she should get at least 5x lower sentence than man would get. Because it's sexism.

Alyssa wrote:

The problem with hate speech is it's never just "speech", since it's reflective of your beliefs and actions. If you say something like "homosexuality/being transgender is a mental disorder", congratz that's what you believe. You just admitted to treating people differently. It is speech that's reflective of how you interact with others, which is action.

Simply saying you do not agree with an idea, especially an idea as philosophical and psychological as Transgenderism, does not mean that the individual expressing their disagreement with the said idea is ‘reflective’ of how they treat people. For instance, Muslims are generally not allowed by their religion to support Homosexuality (and one is heavily criticized if they do say they support it and are muslim at the same time) but most will still respect those who do have take on these labels. It is extremely radical and almost irrational to believe that someone simply disagreeing on something means they are ‘bigoted’, ‘nazi’, or ‘hateful’, and I’m honestly tired of seeing it because it stops us from actually having real conversations on why each of us think the way we do. It is not ‘hate speech’ to disagree with a topic or a way of life. For example, I disagree with people getting plastic surgery because I think it is harmful and promotes negative body standards. However, just because I disagree with people getting plastic surgery does not mean that I am ‘denying your right to exist’ or treating someone badly because of it. Hate speech is only hate speech when it’s actually hateful. Someone simply saying ‘I believe that transgender identity is a product of mental disorder’ is not the same as ‘transgender people are purely delusional and should be shamed from society for thinking the way they do’. The human race did not get to where it is today by simply spewing insults and personal attacks on someone because of pure disagreements. You can disagree with a claim that you feel is unsupported or illogical, but stop trying to make it seem as if any critique or disbelief in a topic you believe in is hateful, because that is not the truth in actuality at all.

Simply saying you do not agree with an idea, especially an idea as philosophical and psychological as Transgenderism, does not mean that the individual expressing their disagreement with the said idea is ‘reflective’ of how they treat people.

In what fucking world is this even remotely true? If someone tells me "I don't like brocoli", I'm not going to assume that means that they'll eat brocoli but they just object to the theoretical existence of it or whatever. Likewise, if they say something like "black people are typically criminals" or "muslims are typically terrorists", in what world am I to assume that that's not how they treat people in those groups?

Muslims are generally not allowed by their religion to support Homosexuality (and one is heavily criticized if they do say they support it and are muslim at the same time) but most will still respect those who do

Not being allowed to support something =/= expressing explicitly hateful or derogatory speech towards something. The same theoretical group of people you're referring to probably aren't going around saying "homosexuality is a mental disorder" either, so they wouldn't fall under the types of people I'm criticizing.

It is extremely radical and almost irrational to believe that someone simply disagreeing on something means they are ‘bigoted’, ‘nazi’, or ‘hateful’, and I’m honestly tired of seeing it because it stops us from actually having real conversations on why each of us think the way we do.

Where are these 'real conversations' you're referring to? Are they in the room with us right now? They all boil down to various flavors of "you, as a person, and your existence is immoral to my world view". Religious extremists justify it through whatever codex they defend. Political zealots usually disguise it as the former with more political jargon. Incel chuds are either extremely closeted and full of repressed self-loathing or are doing some variant of licking Andrew Tate's feet (that's one area that I refuse to read more of to spare myself the brain cells).

Moreover, none of these conversations can actually occur if hate speech is present and accepted in the first place because marginalized people just aren't going to show up and sit down for the conversation. The only way to actually have hope some kind of conversation can take place in the first place is if hate speech is restricted/prohibited.

For example, I disagree with people getting plastic surgery

Conflating plastic surgery with someone's identity or race is wild.

Someone simply saying ‘I believe that transgender identity is a product of mental disorder’ is not the same as ‘transgender people are purely delusional and should be shamed from society for thinking the way they do’.

Is the Winter Olympics up next in the rotation? The mental gymnastics you're doing here are impressive. You should try out.

Alyssa wrote:

Simply saying you do not agree with an idea, especially an idea as philosophical and psychological as Transgenderism, does not mean that the individual expressing their disagreement with the said idea is ‘reflective’ of how they treat people.

In what fucking world is this even remotely true? If someone tells me "I don't like brocoli", I'm not going to assume that means that they'll eat brocoli but they just object to the theoretical existence of it or whatever. Likewise, if they say something like "black people are typically criminals" or "muslims are typically terrorists", in what world am I to assume that that's not how they treat people in those groups?

This isn’t as simple as liking or not liking something however. People can like black people and still have unintentionally racist views on black people, whether that be they think black people are gang members or that black people grow up with no father. These are beliefs they have been fed and while it may be ignorant, yes, it doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily going to treat them as awful human beings. It isn’t that simple. So it isn’t exactly a stretch to say that a person’s beliefs dictate how they treat people. It may dictate how they perceive or like a person as an individual, but that does not mean that they do not have the capability of being respectful to people despite their beliefs.

Muslims are generally not allowed by their religion to support Homosexuality (and one is heavily criticized if they do say they support it and are muslim at the same time) but most will still respect those who do

Not being allowed to support something =/= expressing explicitly hateful or derogatory speech towards something. The same theoretical group of people you're referring to probably aren't going around saying "homosexuality is a mental disorder" either, so they wouldn't fall under the types of people I'm criticizing.

But many religions like Muslims do see it as a sin and believe it is a sin and a choice, so while they may not say a statement such as that specifically, they still have beliefs that are often disagreed upon by the LGB community.

It is extremely radical and almost irrational to believe that someone simply disagreeing on something means they are ‘bigoted’, ‘nazi’, or ‘hateful’, and I’m honestly tired of seeing it because it stops us from actually having real conversations on why each of us think the way we do.

Where are these 'real conversations' you're referring to? Are they in the room with us right now? They all boil down to various flavors of "you, as a person, and your existence is immoral to my world view". Religious extremists justify it through whatever codex they defend. Political zealots usually disguise it as the former with more political jargon. Incel chuds are either extremely closeted and full of repressed self-loathing or are doing some variant of licking Andrew Tate's feet (that's one area that I refuse to read more of to spare myself the brain cells).

Someone saying ‘homosexuality is a mental disorder/illness’ could be considered hateful or offensive if you think having a mental disorder is bad. However, if they provide actual reason as to why they think this, even if they are ignorant or unaware of the other evidence on the topic, rather than calling their belief inherently hateful, something that they’ve probably always thought, simply address their arguments with other pieces of evidence and information that challenges their worldview. That is the conversations that I am referring to. Simply spewing insults go nowhere, as harshness often causes people to close their minds off from even considering the idea of changing their viewpoints. The goal isn’t to change their views and values/thought processes right at that moment, it’s to plant a seed of doubt that will cause them to continue trying to become more informed on the topic and finding out the conclusion or compromise that they feel is best on the topic at hand.

Moreover, none of these conversations can actually occur if hate speech is present and accepted in the first place because marginalized people just aren't going to show up and sit down for the conversation. The only way to actually have hope some kind of conversation can take place in the first place is if hate speech is restricted/prohibited.

What you define as hate speech isn’t hate speech though. They are claims you don’t agree with.

For example, I disagree with people getting plastic surgery

Conflating plastic surgery with someone's identity or race is wild.

Some people get plastic surgery because it allows them to express their wanted physical characteristics which could be internalized and has been proven to be internalized considering it is the same thing as a transgender person getting surgery to change their secondary sex characteristics. Would you say those sex characteristics are not something that is internalized just as someone who gets plastic surgery may internalize the parts they get surgically removed or added in order to be perceived as attractive to the majority? Do you believe that wanting to feel attractive is not something that is internalized? These are genuine questions as I am trying to understand your worldview on this.

Someone simply saying ‘I believe that transgender identity is a product of mental disorder’ is not the same as ‘transgender people are purely delusional and should be shamed from society for thinking the way they do’.

Is the Winter Olympics up next in the rotation? The mental gymnastics you're doing here are impressive. You should try out.

I honestly don’t really know how to respond to this. I am a very deep thinker and I think about these topics a lot, so I can see how my thoughts may seem overwhelming or confusing to most as I can word things very weirdly and whatnot. I just write whatever comes to mind so I can see how my claims can be disorganized. Sorry about that. If you don’t mind me asking, what part of my conclusion was confusing? I want to see if I can find another way to rephrase it. Again, sorry about that.

SatanLucy wrote:

The problem with hate speech is it's never just "speech", since it's reflective of your beliefs and actions. If you say something like "homosexuality/being transgender is a mental disorder", congratz that's what you believe. You just admitted to treating people differently. It is speech that's reflective of how you interact with others, which is action.

All speech can lead to action, but doesn't mean it will, so this is irrelevant.

I can say that trans people have a mental disorder while I still treat trans people just fine. Tho personally, I don't think mental disorders even exist. People literally just made it up.

I will do my best to critique this. If I misrepresent you, feel free to correct this. I think the issue with this is you are arguing possibility vs probability. You can tell the difference by using statistical analysis, quantitative research, and even qualitative research at times. So to use an example if you said that individuals in that community have a mental disorder, and their were negative affects such as suicide rates, hate crimes, or unfair work treatment then you could probably make a case this would be a form of hate speech. Now in the U.S. this isn’t prohibited from saying but companies and online platforms have a right to block certain things to prevent harm. I look at it similar to YouTube terms of service. If you don’t want to follow certain guideline then you don’t have to use the platform. Now if we are talking about saying something in your own place, out somewhere, at a protest, or just out anywhere it’s your constitutional right. Now where I may agree with you is that I don’t think there should be limits on this. For example I don’t think sites should restrict thoughts because it furthers the divide. Scholars such as Ambrose mention that it takes a while to change long standing ideas someone was raised in. So even though hateful speech sucks, it should be allowed so discussions could happen. Silencing it, just amplifies the other side. Then we get nowhere, because both sides are going to fight to control certain platforms.

It may dictate how they perceive or like a person as an individual, but that does not mean that they do not have the capability of being respectful to people despite their beliefs.

Having the capacity to be respectful =/= actually being respectful. Everyone has the capacity for respect and empathy. Not everyone exercises it.

But many religions like Muslims do see it as a sin and believe it is a sin and a choice, so while they may not say a statement such as that specifically, they still have beliefs that are often disagreed upon by the LGB community.

Let me provide an example then:

Back when I coached high school speech and debate ~8-10 years ago, I had a student who was a real bright kid. Played football, studied hard, genuinely a good person. Deeply, deeply Christian beliefs, put Christ first in all aspects of his life. Never made anyone feel lesser than for who they were or what they believed, genuinely loved everyone.

During one topic (well it was really a couple topics, but regardless), he had gotten it into his head that he wanted to run cases that utilized the Divine Command Theory as part of his framework. I was skeptical of it but I said sure, helped him write the cases and research the arguments. He was in a quarterfinals round where, and I forget the context of the statement because it's been a hot minute, but he made the claim that went something along the lines of "trans people are immoral". I was in the round with him as an observer and it took him a second for the reality of the words that just came out of his mouth to actually register with his brain, but the shock and dread on his face when he made that claim was clear as fucking day. Granted he recovered quickly and kept going with the round, but there's no doubt in my mind that, after recognizing what he just said, that he regretted what he said.

Tea doesn't end there because one of the judges in the round happened to be a trans person. Round ends, judges vote, my kid lost 3-0. Granted he lost the debate for more reasons than just the outlandish comment, but every single judge mentioned it to him as a "You really shouldn't have said that" kind of thing.

After the round, I pulled him aside to talk to him about it to try and figure out what happened that lead to that moment. My expectation going into it was going to be some level of judge bashing and "Oh I got judge screwed because of one comment" kinda talk (most kids I coach who develop this trait get it from me, I was an absolute menace as a high school debater and owe multiple apologies to past judges for things I've said behind their backs).

His reaction? He asked me if Dakota (the name of the trans judge in the debate) was okay and if I could talk to them to see if they'd be willing to hear an apology from him. He clarified that the words he chose in the moment weren't actually the argument he was trying to make (granted the argument he wanted to make wasn't much better from a strategic view, but was infinitely less inflamatory), and he wanted the judge to know that what he said in the round wasn't actually something he believed or defended.

Moral of the story, religious texts can say one thing, but individual religious followers don't always defend or believe every line of text in the books, nor every interpretation of those texts. Listen to what they say and watch what they do. That tells you what they really believe.

Someone saying ‘homosexuality is a mental disorder/illness’ could be considered hateful or offensive if you think having a mental disorder is bad.

My belief is irrelevant to their statement. Their intention with the statement is. If they wanted to say that "transgender issues are rooted in gender dysphoria, which is a mental health issue", that's an altogether different statement than "transgender people are a mental health problem", even though they look similar.

simply address their arguments with other pieces of evidence and information that challenges their worldview.

Wild that people still thinks that this works in the year of our lord 2026. Hell, I can point you to multiple threads on this site alone that serve as examples of this not actually doing anything.

Simply spewing insults go nowhere,

So marginalized groups are supposed to sit down at a table where insults are being thrown at them or are everpresent around them and remain open minded, but aren't allowed to call out those insults for what they are for risk of "closing off the minds" of people promoting hate speech? Make it make sense, please.

What you define as hate speech isn’t hate speech though. They are claims you don’t agree with.

Por que no los dos.

Some people get plastic surgery because it allows them to express their wanted physical characteristics which could be internalized and has been proven to be internalized considering it is the same thing as a transgender person getting surgery to change their secondary sex characteristics.

Are...are you actually defending that someone getting lip filler is the equivalent of a trans person have gender reassignment surgery? Legit question.

If you don’t mind me asking, what part of my conclusion was confusing?

The problem with your conclusions, at least in this specific quote chain, is that you seem to be looking at statement in a vacuum without considering the context of the intentions of the speaker. I've worded above ways to differentiate statements in a vacuum that make it clearer to tell intent, but the bottom line is people choose their words intentionally, whether that decision is conscious or not. Hate speech is speech that is intentionally derogatory or marginalizing, and there are lots of ways for that to present itself if we're only considering a single marginalized group, much less every group that is or has been marginalized. Especially over the internet, where we don't have body language queues to help us gauge intentions, our words carry meaning, so the only avenue for productive discourse and opening the avenue for changing people's ideas is if everyone feels comfortable being present in the first place. Hate speech creates an ecosystem where marginalized groups don't feel comfortable, so we're never going to get honest discourse to challenge harmful stereotypes or stygmas because the affected parties aren't going to be there to defend themselves. Ergo, if we care about free speech and the promotion of rigorous and intellectual discourse, hate speech can't be present.

Alyssa wrote:

It may dictate how they perceive or like a person as an individual, but that does not mean that they do not have the capability of being respectful to people despite their beliefs.

Having the capacity to be respectful =/= actually being respectful. Everyone has the capacity for respect and empathy. Not everyone exercises it.

But many religions like Muslims do see it as a sin and believe it is a sin and a choice, so while they may not say a statement such as that specifically, they still have beliefs that are often disagreed upon by the LGB community.

Let me provide an example then:

Back when I coached high school speech and debate ~8-10 years ago, I had a student who was a real bright kid. Played football, studied hard, genuinely a good person. Deeply, deeply Christian beliefs, put Christ first in all aspects of his life. Never made anyone feel lesser than for who they were or what they believed, genuinely loved everyone.

During one topic (well it was really a couple topics, but regardless), he had gotten it into his head that he wanted to run cases that utilized the Divine Command Theory as part of his framework. I was skeptical of it but I said sure, helped him write the cases and research the arguments. He was in a quarterfinals round where, and I forget the context of the statement because it's been a hot minute, but he made the claim that went something along the lines of "trans people are immoral". I was in the round with him as an observer and it took him a second for the reality of the words that just came out of his mouth to actually register with his brain, but the shock and dread on his face when he made that claim was clear as fucking day. Granted he recovered quickly and kept going with the round, but there's no doubt in my mind that, after recognizing what he just said, that he regretted what he said.

Tea doesn't end there because one of the judges in the round happened to be a trans person. Round ends, judges vote, my kid lost 3-0. Granted he lost the debate for more reasons than just the outlandish comment, but every single judge mentioned it to him as a "You really shouldn't have said that" kind of thing.

After the round, I pulled him aside to talk to him about it to try and figure out what happened that lead to that moment. My expectation going into it was going to be some level of judge bashing and "Oh I got judge screwed because of one comment" kinda talk (most kids I coach who develop this trait get it from me, I was an absolute menace as a high school debater and owe multiple apologies to past judges for things I've said behind their backs).

His reaction? He asked me if Dakota (the name of the trans judge in the debate) was okay and if I could talk to them to see if they'd be willing to hear an apology from him. He clarified that the words he chose in the moment weren't actually the argument he was trying to make (granted the argument he wanted to make wasn't much better from a strategic view, but was infinitely less inflamatory), and he wanted the judge to know that what he said in the round wasn't actually something he believed or defended.

Moral of the story, religious texts can say one thing, but individual religious followers don't always defend or believe every line of text in the books, nor every interpretation of those texts. Listen to what they say and watch what they do. That tells you what they really believe.

Cool story. It’s honestly refreshing hearing other experiences and perspectives. I do get that there are people in religions that do not take every word in the texts for truth per se, however there are still many who do and will still remain respectful despite not being supportive of it. That’s what I’m trying to get at with this point. Just because someone believes something, doesn’t mean they’re going to treat said person with disrespect. Anyone who does that is just a plain jerk, in all honesty. The whole point of society is coinciding with each other despite our differences in beliefs.

Someone saying ‘homosexuality is a mental disorder/illness’ could be considered hateful or offensive if you think having a mental disorder is bad.

My belief is irrelevant to their statement. Their intention with the statement is. If they wanted to say that "transgender issues are rooted in gender dysphoria, which is a mental health issue", that's an altogether different statement than "transgender people are a mental health problem", even though they look similar.

But sometimes the intention isn’t intended to cause harm. It’s to make a claim they believe is true, no matter how controversial it may seem. When we start stopping people from expressing what they believe is true from the evidence they’ve been presented just because it’s controversial or considered offensive, we end up taking away many other freedoms that come along with it. For example, this may be a rather extreme example of what I mean, but the slavery was a pretty controversial topic back in the 1800s. I’m sure many white slave owners were insulted and offended about being called immoral for their racist views and favor for slavery. The point I’m trying to make is basically, even if a claim may be controversial or offensive to a certain group of people, silencing that individual because of it is taking away their first amendment rights.

simply address their arguments with other pieces of evidence and information that challenges their worldview.

Wild that people still thinks that this works in the year of our lord 2026. Hell, I can point you to multiple threads on this site alone that serve as examples of this not actually doing anything.

Just because it is not commonly done anymore in 2026, that does not mean it doesn’t work. Oftentimes, when you have respectful conversations where both sides are actually listening to each other and bringing up specific criticisms on the other person’s argument, it promotes critical thinking and the ability to open your mind up to different perspectives, interpretations, and ideas. This allows for more effective communication and cooperation, as well as an increased chance of coming to a middle ground.

Simply spewing insults go nowhere,

So marginalized groups are supposed to sit down at a table where insults are being thrown at them or are everpresent around them and remain open minded, but aren't allowed to call out those insults for what they are for risk of "closing off the minds" of people promoting hate speech? Make it make sense, please.

If that’s how you’d like to describe it. Personally, I saw a few comments of yours that felt like they could have been personally attacking me and my character. Whether that was the intention, I do not know and I’m not going to accuse you of anything, but even knowing that there was a possibility of the comments being made to attack my character, I did not respond to them and only responded to the points you make. My stance is that even though a claim may be offensive or controversial, it isn’t inherently hateful or hate speech. If the claim is interpreted as an insult, ‘returning the favor’ per se doesn’t help because if it was a genuine claim, you’ve attacked their character which automatically makes most people defensive and more unwilling to consider changing their views. Plus, I just genuinely think back and forth insults are immature and equates to playground arguments. My point still stands that they get you no where. I have met many who made racist claims that I found personally insulting, even my some of my friends, but I have never snapped at them for having those views, as my goal is mainly to challenge and plant the seed of doubt. That’s all that matters. Conversation needs both sides to be respectful and understanding to be effective and productive. A one sided conversation will go nowhere and at that point, if the person continues being disrespectful, it’s a matter of knowing when to leave and let it be.

What you define as hate speech isn’t hate speech though. They are claims you don’t agree with.

Por que no los dos.

It can be both, though the examples you gave were claims, not hate speech. When talking of hate speech, it is often when someone demeans, dehumanizes, implies inferiority, says slurs, incites for the exclusion of a certain group of people, maliciously stereotypes, and promotes violence/threats towards a certain group. Simply making a claim is not hate speech.

Some people get plastic surgery because it allows them to express their wanted physical characteristics which could be internalized and has been proven to be internalized considering it is the same thing as a transgender person getting surgery to change their secondary sex characteristics.

Are...are you actually defending that someone getting lip filler is the equivalent of a trans person have gender reassignment surgery? Legit question.

Yes, I do feel it is equivalent to gender reassignment surgery. Considering oneself attractive can be something that is internalized. A lot of things are actually internalized. I perceive someone getting plastic surgery to ‘fix’ a body part they feel dysphoric about (as the word dysphoria separate from gender dysphoria means dislike or dissatisfaction) is equivalent to that of a trans person getting surgery to change their secondary sex characteristics. You are welcome to explain why you believe it is different if you want.

If you don’t mind me asking, what part of my conclusion was confusing?

The problem with your conclusions, at least in this specific quote chain, is that you seem to be looking at statement in a vacuum without considering the context of the intentions of the speaker. I've worded above ways to differentiate statements in a vacuum that make it clearer to tell intent, but the bottom line is people choose their words intentionally, whether that decision is conscious or not.

It is not intentional if it is of the subconscious mind. Subconscious actions and speech are what makes actions and speech unintentional. It is only intentional when it is consciously done.

Hate speech is speech that is intentionally derogatory or marginalizing, and there are lots of ways for that to present itself if we're only considering a single marginalized group, much less every group that is or has been marginalized. Especially over the internet, where we don't have body language queues to help us gauge intentions, our words carry meaning, so the only avenue for productive discourse and opening the avenue for changing people's ideas is if everyone feels comfortable being present in the first place. Hate speech creates an ecosystem where marginalized groups don't feel comfortable, so we're never going to get honest discourse to challenge harmful stereotypes or stygmas because the affected parties aren't going to be there to defend themselves. Ergo, if we care about free speech and the promotion of rigorous and intellectual discourse, hate speech can't be present.

I guess it depends on how we’re defining hate speech. I don’t feel controversial claims are hate speech. It’s only hate speech when you are implying another group is inferior, should be excluded, etc. Someone saying ‘Trans women are men’ may be considered transphobic or bigoted towards trans people, but it is still a claim/belief used in the controversial debate on whether trans women are allowed into single sexed spaces for biological women. And in all honesty, there will probably never be an ecosystem where everyone feels accepted because we all have different opinions and values. Simply someone disagreeing with a statement or popular belief is enough to cause people either exclude said person directly, or to exclude themselves from the platform someone said that controversial opinion on.

I feel this conversation was generally good and productive, at least in my opinion. I apologize if the information was hard to digest and subject to misinterpretation. I’m trying to get better at wording my claims and whatnot, but I think in the end, I might have cleared up any misunderstandings on where I stand. You can still reply to me if you want and I will read it, but I probably won’t respond cause I’m mentally drained from going back and forth and kinda need a break and all. If you still disagree with me, that’s fine. It’s just one of those conversations where we agree to disagree. I just hope that we both learned new different perspectives today. Thank you for having this discussion with me. I know this is very time consuming so I appreciate you indulging in this conversation with me. Have a wonderful day/night 🙏🏾

 I do get that there are people in religions that do not take every word in the texts for truth per se, however there are still many who do and will still remain respectful despite not being supportive of it.

That's problematic for its own reasons. I don't defend inaction is complicity in everything, but when it comes to things like this it absolutely is. If you have the chance to uplift others, you absolutely should. If you witness someone putting other people down or spreading hateful ideas, then you should absolutely say something.

In this case, it creates false allyship. It gives off the feeling that people who are marginalized can feel safe around someone and, when they want to open up and confide in that person, will realize that the person who they thought they knew and trusted was never actually that person.

Bigots who are openly bigots are easy, in comparison, to deal with - you just ignore/avoid them if you're not feeling up for that kind of confrontation. The people who hold bigoted views and keep them secret are harder. It's a reminder that in the modern world, there are very few spaces that are truly safe for marginalized people to exist without judgment or reprisal.

Moreover, this kinda flies in the face of your whole point of "just talk to these people and change their minds with evidence", doesn't it? If they're not going to actually express their views, how do I change them? When does this conversation occur?

But sometimes the intention isn’t intended to cause harm. It’s to make a claim they believe is true, no matter how controversial it may seem.

There's definitely a point where these claims cease to be "just claims" though. We've had the debates over gay rights, racial and gender discrimination, trans rights, etc. ad nauseum over a variety of different forums. The research and evidence is not hard to find. Yet they still make these claims. Even when directly presented with the evidence they don't stop. It stopped being a matter of "differing opinions" years ago for trans rights. Decades ago for gay rights. Even longer for things like sexism and racism. It's just part of the culture for people who believe these things. No piles of empirical evidence and analytical review will change that - they just don't give a damn.

It's real easy to tell who actually intends to cause harm - just look to see who doubles down after presented with reality.

even if a claim may be controversial or offensive to a certain group of people, silencing that individual because of it is taking away their first amendment rights.

That's...not what the First Amendment says in really any way, nor does the First Amendment apply to privately owned spaces like this very website.

The First Amendment says that they can't punish you for speaking out against them. You're allowed to make all the inflammatory claims about the government and, so long as you're not actively planning to commit violence, they just have to sit there and take it with a smile. Nothing about the First Amendment speaks to anything regarding discourse between private parties or about discourse in privately owned spaces. It's why Terms of Use agreements exist and why places like Youtube is free to flag and take down whatever videos they like - they own the space completely, and they decide what kind of discourse is acceptable or not on it. Citing the First Amendment isn't going to save you from getting banned on, really, any website when you inevitably get banned for dropping slurs or doing things that violate their conduct policies. Not to mention that websites are accessible globally, generally speaking, so trying to apply protections enforced by the US Constitution for a website that's hosted in, say, Spain is laughable.

This website is still in the developmental stages, so it has the choice as to which direction it wants to go in with regard to what kind of discourse is permissible here. I'm losing optimism that it will pick a good direction as time goes on.

Just because it is not commonly done anymore in 2026, that does not mean it doesn’t work.

It's not commonly done anymore because history has shown very clearly that it doesn't work. It took a war to enforce the point that institutionalized slavery was not okay, and that just shifted things to less flagrant forms of oppression, relatively speaking. How many spouses were stuck in abusive households or died at the hands of their "loving partners" before Women's Suffrage was accepted, and even to this days facets of sexism still exist. We're still in the fighting stages for things like gay rights and trans rights, and people are still being marginalized because of who they are. No study changes that, regardless of how persuasive the speaker is. Hell, just look at how polarized politics is in the modern day. I can throw all the sources in the world at the average MAGA fan. All I'd get back is "fake news".

It's a nice ideal, I'll give it that. Hell, I used to think it was true. After the tenth or so time that it failed to actually do anything I realized that y'know, some people just don't want to change.

If that’s how you’d like to describe it.

How else am I supposed to describe it? What you're effectively asking people to do is for a black person to sit down at a debate with a white supremacist that's moderated by Trump and expecting there to be some semblance of a civil conversation. Nothing productive is going to happen there.

As for your personal concerns with things I've said, I apologize. I don't mean to attack you as a person. If some things I've said seem overtly confrontational, just understand that I'm tired from working pay check to pay check and my patience for things like this, given other people's antics on this site, is virtually gone. I don't mean to take that out on you.

Simply making a claim is not hate speech.

A lot of the claims we've been talking about do these things that you categorize as qualities of hate speech, though. Saying things like homosexuality is a mental illness implies that there's something wrong with people who are homosexual, that they're damaged or "not right", and that if they were "fixed" then they wouldn't be homosexual. If that's not demeaning or dehumanizing or implying inferiority, then I'm really curious as to what you think qualifies.

Yes, I do feel it is equivalent to gender reassignment surgery.

I somehow missed this when I was originally skimming your post. That's...wow.

Gender dysphoria is not just some generic "dissatisfaction" or wanting to be more attractive in their eyes. Imagine you wake up in someone else's body (since your profile says you identify as a girl, for this example imagine you wake up in a guy's body). The feel is wrong. Your body shape is wrong, moves wrong, acts wrong. You get up and look in the mirror and the reflection looking back at you is completely alien to you. There's the part of your mind that reminds you that this is you according to everyone around you. There's the other part of your mind that screams that something is wrong, that nothing makes sense. The stubble of facial hair on your face grows out like a sore or a tumor and it's lauded as a sign of good growth, something that's 'normal' that feels anything but. You go to put on clothes but nothing fits right or feels right. Even that stuff that by all measurements fits your body perfectly feels like a badly measured costume, an act for a play that you never signed up for but keep getting pushed on stage for day in and day out.

That's the closest I can get to describing gender dysphoria for people who are still in the closet, and that still barely scratches the surface. The rest I literally don't have words to describe. And it gets worse once you understand the gender dysphoria behind it.

Gender reassignment surgery isn't just some bland cosmetic procedure, a simple swapping of parts to make someone look different. It's about claiming your identity, asserting yourself on a stage that is actively trying to push you down, rectifying some kind of genetic or cosmic mistake so that for the first time, you can live authentically without having to look down at ever present reminders that re-open old traumas.

So if you think that the soccer moms who go to get lip filler to follow the latest fashion trend are on the same level of need as trans people looking for treatment, I don't think we have anything more to discuss.

Discrimination is an inherent survival strategy, exacerbated by formative and social conditioning...There's no escaping the human condition...As you yourself exemplified by being intolerant of intolerant people...

Self-righteousness only vindicates the self, but doesn't validate the hypocrisy.

So to use an example if you said that individuals in that community have a mental disorder, and their were negative affects such as suicide rates, hate crimes, or unfair work treatment then you could probably make a case this would be a form of hate speech.

Not really. Speech having a few negative effects doesnt mean speech should be banned. Otherwise, all speech would be banned, because anyone can determine anything as negative effect. And speech doesnt need to translate to action, so its irrelevant. One can ban negative action without banning speech.

Now in the U.S. this isn’t prohibited from saying but companies and online platforms have a right to block certain things to prevent harm. I look at it similar to YouTube terms of service. If you don’t want to follow certain guideline then you don’t have to use the platform. Now if we are talking about saying something in your own place, out somewhere, at a protest, or just out anywhere it’s your constitutional right. Now where I may agree with you is that I don’t think there should be limits on this. For example I don’t think sites should restrict thoughts because it furthers the divide. Scholars such as Ambrose mention that it takes a while to change long standing ideas someone was raised in. So even though hateful speech sucks, it should be allowed so discussions could happen. Silencing it, just amplifies the other side. Then we get nowhere, because both sides are going to fight to control certain platforms.

I agree there.

SergeantLynch wrote:

Discrimination is an inherent survival strategy, exacerbated by formative and social conditioning...There's no escaping the human condition...As you yourself exemplified by being intolerant of intolerant people...

Self-righteousness only vindicates the self, but doesn't validate the hypocrisy.

You explained this so much better than me. Thank you 🙏🏾

So long as speech isn't crossing a line...

So long as the government isn't defining the lines...

Fortunately thoughts are still free, as is the ability to ignore.

Fact is though, some people love being the victims of hate speech, so that they can respond in a preferred way.

Nonetheless, "government" as in authoritative and controlling national bodies are there to define lines.

Anarchy or revolution will only redefine those lines.

Nonetheless, "government" as in authoritative and controlling national bodies are there to define lines.

And the USA has a controlling 2nd branch to rein in that authority.

I think that they are currently finding that a very onerous task.