[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

cameron@patrick.wattle.id.au (Cameron Patrick)  wrote on 18.12.03 in <[🔎] 20031218033607.GA4363@erdos.home>:

> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:32:41AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> | On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 01:16, Nunya wrote:
> |
> | > Face it.  You're practicing hate speech.  You're not better than what
> | > you hate.
> | >
> | Ya know, I've always wondered something when people say things like
> | this...
> |
> | If I say "I hate Adolf Hitler and his cabinet", is that practising hate
> | speech?
> No, but if you say you hate Jews, then many would claim you are.  If you
> wanted to be cynical, you could point out which side won the second
> world war...

... neither of the two above, who are pretty obviously losers (even though  
they're certainly on very different sides; surprise, sometimes there's  
more than two of 'em).

There's more than one actual difference between the two statements,  
though, and I claim those are much more relevant. For example, the one is  
a short list of specific persons, whereas the other is an enormous and ill- 
defined list (the number of people where it's not obviously clear if they  
count as Jews or non-Jews is pretty large).

Also, I'm pretty sure that one of these groups consists only of deceased  
persons. Nobody can make them suffer. The actual point of "hate speech",  
at least as I understand it (our terms for these things are not quite the  
same), is that it is (designed|likely) to cause such suffering.

If pressed, I'd be likely to count stuff like "admit it, you're just  
practising hate speech" als hate speech, though, even though it is  
actually only targeted at a specific person (each time). Though it is  
probably entirely sufficient to characterize it as a blatant ad-hominem.

MfG Kai

Reply to: