At least in the US, 'Hate Crime' is used as a sentence multiplier. Murder someone and it's 8-25 years, usually. Murder someone because you're white and they're black and now it's 24-75 years, if not Life without Parole. The other problem is that Hate Speech gets tossed around as a way to silence people. "I have an issue with male homosexuality because it is highly likely to result in abusive relationships and higher rates of STD transmission" (both of which are documented with a lot of statistics) gets shouted down as hate speech.
Wut!!? That's pretty certainly not related to homosexuality, but probably just shitty hegemonial male behaviour, or even selfhate inflicted by a hateful society. Statistics only ever tell you one side of the truth! Not saying it's hate speech it's just plain misinformed, and dumb! Regarding disease, it just comes from being more sexually active and is a culture thing more than biology or what ever and also a result of marginalisation/discrimination! Look at the bigger picture, dude! Or talk and live with gay people to understand! Going back to infinity and with that topic in mind, I always ask myself how many Nazis Bakunin houses? Corregidor seems to have some kind of limit to how far you can go without the community at interest (Airlocks) and on Tunguska people probably don't care or you will just get bullied one way or the other. On Bakunin it seems when your just a big enough asshole you can end up as a Morlock, but I doubt you won't end up there just by speaking hateful stuff alone. Ironically Morlocks are the only unit in Infinity with a German name. Not sure if that is an wink/nod or just coincidence.
I'm not qualified to talk on the specific statistics @Section9 mentioned, but your answer is a pretty good indicator that the legalities of the term hate crime might not be very clear in the first place. If said statistics do exist and are founded on empirical data, it's most definitely not hate speech, but it will immediately be labled as such because it doesn't conform to the world view of a lot of people.
I suppose you could argue that the statistic is already hateful, because it's used to make a "hateful" argument. In Germany we don't really have the concept of hate crime/speech at all! So I am fine with not using it, but it's nevertheless just discriminating and in general not an informed statement!
Yeah, I like how its always "PC Gone Too Far!" because of... pretty hateful thing I personally believe isn't hateful because I believe it. PC/Anti-hate speech hasn't gone to far. I live in Australia. Again, we have anti-hate speech laws. Our government is basically founded on using a revamped "White Australia" policy as its only tool to win elections. Seriously they go out in public telling us our second most populous state is being terrorized by African 13 year olds conspiring in gangs to destroy the turn out at the local (White) restaurant industry. And that's an attempted populist electoral strategy. That's not even the most insanely offensive one in the last month. And we have anti-hate speech laws "silencing" (apparently not enough) racist speech. PC has not gone mad. Anti-Hate Speech isn't out of control silencing valid and productive free speech. Anyone saying that about basically anywhere is either not paying attention, is obsessed or fooled by cherry picked often hoaxed examples, or worse.
The statistics itself cannot be hateful – they are either true or untrue. They can definitely be used with malicious intent or misrepresented in order to further a specific agenda, with that I'll agree. However, they can also be used to put the finger on a specific problem and incentivise finding a solution for whatever problem has been identified. It's all about how these things are laid out and in what context they are applied.
I'm going to warn people that there has been a recent resurgence in somewhat shoddy non-peer reviewed publications justifying racism and other rather nasty stuff using long since refuted methodologies and questionable cherry picked and otherwise manipulated (if not outright manufactured) "empirical data". It happens basically every decade or so, gets stomped down by real science and happens again later because people don't want to let go of looking for an excuse to justify their already held prejudices. So... if you see anyone brandishing so called "empirical data" like that at the moment... yeah. I mean that stuff however thoroughly refuted is always out there, but there is more right now than usual. So basically anyone claiming that sort of stuff... they've probably either been duped or worse.
The incidence of STIs is higher in kampeitai men than the average. Why? There is evidence to suggest kampeitai men who have sex with kampeitai men have more casual sex partners than other combinations of sex and sexual orientation. There is also evidence that condom use is lower amongst casual sex partners who are both kampeitai men, and it is probably because pregnancy is not a risk. Getting smashed up the butt is probably more likely to result in disease transmission because there is more damage, and we know damage aids the transmission of disease (No one has ever gotten an aids infected Kampeitai to smash his partner up the butt to see how many times it takes for them to get infected to test this). Now, rutting like hogs and getting smashed up the butt without a condom are not exclusively kampeitai behaviours, nor are they requirements. Therefore, people who have issue with kampeitai because of STIs instead have issues with rutting like hogs and getting smashed up the butt without a condom. If they approve of this behaviour in hetero people, they may be prejudiced or just misinformed.
When I say morality is subjective it means exactly that, there is no solid fundamental universal law like gravity that either we like it or not exists to point out to the "true moral system" what one period is acceptable the next is not. Principles exist in the pure form of expression, saying you are tolerant means you are tolerant, accepting everybody for what they are, been intolerant is again been intolerant, not accepting people for what they are. A person cannot be tolerant but intolerant to intolerant, they are fundamentally intolerant and cannot claim tolerance as their virtue. Now personally I do not buy "racism attacks people anti racism attacks ideas" anti racism attacks people for their ideas, it is an ideological form of racism and we see victims of such attacks constantly, the moral construct to justify the attacks is there as in any form or racism "we are the good they are the bad". "Hate speech" is another problematic thing, a nebulous construct, purposefully undefined because it is used to suppress the political opposition of the ones in power, seen it again and again in the news, there is nothing really definable in the "hate speech" laws and the worse is if a really racist party takes over they have all the tools they need in their hands to do their work, it hurts me to say that in more conservative societies of the past these laws would be fought by the population because they valued their freedom, while now they are passively accepted. How these are laws is amazing, there is nothing solid about them, nothing really codified just the "feelings" of who interpreted it at the time, jokes and memes are "hate speech" because somebody somewhere may feel offended, if my grandfathers were alive today, those practical men who faced fascism, faced racism, survived wars serving, they would laugh such things off thinking them as a joke. The worse part from all of these is we have created "protected groups" that is the worse thing you can do in any attempt to integrate parts in a society. create more dividers. And as always statistics are... statistics, they are made to say whatever the group ordering them want, this is even more evident now were globally predictions are getting so far off from actual results and everybody acts surprised on the fact. Even more so in social sciences researchers are themselves biased and produce the results they think it is the correct ones. Don't get me wrong they are a useful predictive tool, but the less objective their field is the less useful they are.
I suggest you actually read about Australia's actual anti-racial vilification laws. Try to avoid the propaganda and read about what they actually are instead of what the local pro "White Australia Policy" think tanks want you to think they are, find out how they work in a bit of actual detail, and how they have been actually (and very rarely) applied. Because it is clear you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about. And offensive as I personally find your declarations about how terrible the thing you imagine our anti-hate speech laws are... as a good example it wouldn't count as hate speech here (or even come remotely close) since we have very strictly codified laws about what can count as hate speech and several processes designed to carefully test and then reconcile claims to keep both invalid claims and easily reconciled ones out of court if possible. I literally cannot nebulously claim offense and demand protection from things you have said that I find really rather offensive. In the actual real world you have to say specific things in specific contexts about specific people every last one of which meets extensively detailed legal definitions and then what you said is very rigorously tested and only the very most offensive acts of vilification actually even make it to court let alone conviction for an often really minor penalty. There is not an army of thought police jumping out of the bushes every time you thoughtlessly hurt someones fragile feelings in any imaginable way. That's not how anti-hate speech laws actually work in actual practice. That's just how people with a deeply worrying agenda against those laws and your better education want you to think those laws work.
As in speech, it is called "Volksverhetzung". Violent crimes committed for racist reasons have their own category in law enforcement. How well law enforcement works is another question.
If you want to argue that someone's fundamental right to not be harassed for how they look like, where they were born or what their sexuality is; first define and argue that your own right to live is not subjective. Your right to be alive is just as poorly defined and lacking in natural laws as someone else' right to live their life without being harassed for what they can not change. We as a society accept that you have a right to live, so why is it so foreign not to accept that verbal attacks on someone else' being should not be acceptable?
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you for real? Your country litterally makes police raids against people who are guilty of "hate speech". I'm sorry but this hillarious to me, that anyone from Germany would unironically say this.
Grenzer, Cube Jäger, Knauf, Bakunin Überfallkommando. The Teutonic Knights may have an English name, but they speak German. PanO has an Oberhaus. I am not even sure what CB supposedly wants to wink at.
“Where’s the white supremacist computer lab?” ring any bells? ETA: I’m not disagreeing with you necessarily, just suggesting that it is not perhaps quite as one sided as you suggest in the quote above.
We have those defined. Threaths about violence, intimidation and rape are illegal in most western countries. It becomes a slippery slope when you want to broaden what constitues for "illegal" speech. Telford rape gangs have been operating for over 40 years in the UK, because "hate speech" and the fear of being labelled a "racist" or "intolerant" have crippled the police and their investigation. This isn't an attack on any groups, it's merely to show why such things can have a regressive effect, despite being done in good faith.
As a german myself i would like to have a proof for that accusation. But for anyones interest, if the german police does such a "raid" they have something called "Durchsuchungsbeschluß". Its a document signed by a judge that aloows that and without that documant police is only allowed to enter your home in an emergency. Simple hate speech isnt enough to get a "Durchsuchungsbeschluß" most time those people "raided" are known to be on the extrem right and left side of the political spectrum and are suspected for other crimes like illegal weapons, drugs etc. On the other side if they "raid" something for a crime but dont get any proof like searching for illegal drugs and dont find any but they find something thats illegal too like illegal weapons, that can be used against you too. ;) And you can get easily an accusation for "Volksverhetzung" if you dont know when to shut up or talk about stuff you know nothing about. Anyone can get a lawyer to make it an official thing at court. Here is an example i will remember for life and its from around 20 years ago, short after the Columbine school shooting. The then bavarian secretary of the interior Günther Beckstein compared videogamers who play something like counterstrike to pedophiles and should be punished like them. In that time the minimum punishment was 3 years of prison without probation. In that spech he called videogames as "entartete Kunst" (abnormal arts) like jewish arts was called in germany in time of the nazi reign. And he got more than one official accusation at courts from different associations.
I think he means this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/...ed-of-hateful-postings-over-social-media.html
I will at some time, but I am referring to the version of the laws that exist in Europe and the version they want to implement in my country.
Well it might be a valid suggestion if you weren't talking about a case that was effectively created and beaten up to exaggerated proportions expressly so that right wing nut bags would have something to cherry pick and leer over as part of a concerted multi-year campaign against our racial vilification laws (and our Human Rights Commission... and our Human Rights Commissioner) by right wing organizations like the IPA... and our media, and ruling federal government none of which was remotely inhibited by our anti-hate speech laws.
