The debate "Offensive hurtful or hate speech should be protected by the first amendment" was started by
September 10, 2016, 5:45 pm.
23 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 14 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
dalton7532 posted 1 argument, grant1998 posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
BBQonions posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
BBQonions, thereal, sabrina, dalton7532, Vayney333, ElvisKim_22, grant1998, Ankit, NationalistGuy, neveralone, nellie11iah and 12 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, historybuff, Hijumi and 11 visitors disagree.
no. when he says Mexicans are bringing drugs and they're rapists and SOME, i assume are good people.
the grammar of that is extremely clear. he meaning of that sentence is that the majority are drug dealing rapists, and the monitory, he assumes, are good people.
that is how English works. if that isn't what he meant he should have clarified. he didn't. he likes saying things that can be seen as ambiguous to encourage his racist support base.
And are you not assuming what he meant?
we've been through this before. he did imply most, if not all Mexican immigrants were drug dealing rapists. you do the same thing all trump supporters do. you play the "this is what trump really meant" game to try to excuse his flagrantly racist, sexist, violent, illegal or just generally terrible statements.
He said some did. In order for that to be racist (even in that case it wouldnt be) there must be an implication that all are rapists. He never made that claim.
I'm not saying Mexicans are rapists. I don't believe they commit more rapes than any other demographic. trump said they did.
So if he didnt say all Mexicans are rapists, but you assume he did--since all Mexicans must be rapists--which is the more racist og sides?
the fact that Republicans are willing to hear racism so often and just ignore it is deeply disturbing. you are either so invested in your political party that you will ignore anything he does. or you are actually just a racist and don't see anything wrong with the atrocious things he says.
either way it is incredibly pathetic.
Nobody ever said all Mexicans are drug dealers, and as I just said hypersensitivity generalizes, it turns a comment into a reality.
"Mexicans are drug dealing rapists. but if you call me a racist for saying that, you are a racist" - Republican logic
Hypersensitivity is racist all on its own. Don't toe the extremes: they lead to thr same conclusion. Striving to condemn something as being racist--taking extreme sensitivity to it--is in itself racist. If somebody says something stereotypical, it is not racist, but one who claims it is believes the stereotype. Am I making sense? If not ill try to clarify what I mran.
"only idiots believe that those who say racist things are racists." Republican logic
it's really not that bad. he does go too far, but he isn't racist. only the idiots believe that
no one is upset about the idea of making America great again. they are upset by the wildly racist, sexist and xenophobic rhetoric he uses to win over idiots.
only dangerous speech, if someone says "death to america" and believes it, we can't let them walk around, it doesn't make sence.
but if someone says "Make america great again" that doesn't hurt anyone, and too bad if you get offended. we don't want america to turn into one big "safe zone"
Only the criminals will be allowed to say what is defined as offensive and hurtful
everything said is protected by your first amendment accept for something that shows a clear, and present danger.
That isn't hate speech, that is fight speech. Hate speech is "I hate Americans". Fight speech is "Lets kill Americans". The first should be allowed to be said, but the second should not.
to violate the rights of a racial, ethnic, or religious group for no reason other than their membership in said group, then you are violating the constitution, and thus should be banned.
it's much the same way you would want to arrest people who are discussing carrying out a terrorist attack. I'm mean, they are just talking, that could be covered under freedom of speech. but it is meant to incite and carry out violence against others, and thus should be banned.
pretty much. you are saying you want to violate the rights of an entire group of people. in the same way that saying "let's murder that guy" is a crime.
I understand that some speech should be banned, like immediate threats or shouting "fire" in a theater because it can has the potential to physically harm someone.
But on what grounds should that second statement be banned? Because it proposes that we single out a group of people for harm?
saying something hurtful like "black people suck" should be protected.
saying things like "we should lock up all the black people" should not.
Offensive and hurtful are subjective terms. Therefore, anything can really be deemed hurtful or offensive. It would violate the first amendment if that kind of speech was not protected by the first amendment.