Gay student speaks up to defend a teacher

[D_Tim McGnaw]

There's no such thing as "hate speech", there's just opinions that you disagree with and words you don't like.

So let's rephrase your statement to eliminate the propaganda and make it more accurate: "People have certain outlooks that I disagree with and instead of promoting an environment where everyone can have their say I would prefer it if the state just threatened those people with violence".

This is a selfish and spiteful way of dealing with the world.

Where did I mention that the state should threaten violence against anyone? Where is even the slightest hint of an implication that this is what I might possibly have been suggesting?

Are you white, and middle class by any chance? I mean as well as being heterosexual, and male. Because if you are and you believe there's no such thing as hate speech there's a very strong reason you will have come to that totally fatuous conclusion.


Besides it's positively contrary to reality to suggest that people do not express their hatred for one another, verbally or in the written word.

If I say that because of some totally arbitrary characteristic of yours the law should allow me and anyone else who wishes to to persecute and hound you to the point where your life is unbearable and you take your own life, that is hardly a mere difference of opinion. That is an expression of the deepest contempt and hatred for you as a human being.

If I say you are less human than me, in that you have fewer human rights than I do and therefore must be less human than I am, that is hate speech because to negate your humanity is to deny that you are worthy of being treated with the rudiments of human decency. That isn't a mere difference of opinion it is an expression of deep hatred for you.


You clearly don't understand that the right to free speech is ultimately not as important a right as the right to live, the right to live without persecution. Ultimately the collective nature of modern societies requires some curtailment of the right to freedom of expression if in doing so these prior rights are protected.

Hate speech contributes to an environment in which these rights are denied, and therefore is not protected by the right to freedom of speech.

Mind you I suspect a person of your political bent to be neither all that conversant in the basic concepts inherent in Human Rights law, or a great fan of that branch of law to begin with. Which is why it puzzles me that you seem to be such a fan of this one single right, the right to express hate.

 

[Speculator]

What you want is the freedom to say whatever you wish (regardless of whom it offends), and not be called on it if it does offend people. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

So you agree with me then, the teacher's actions were offensive and the teacher in question has been called on it, that's fair. Applying the rules unevenly in the classroom by censoring some students and not others is unnaceptable behaviour, as I taxpayer I wouldn't tolerate such self righteousness in UK schools and teachers like this would ideally be struck off. Their ideological outlook isn't welcome around young impressionable pupils.

I'm glad we've managed to clear this up.

 

[Speculator]

Where did I mention that the state should threaten violence against anyone? Where is even the slightest hint of an implication that this is what I might possibly have been suggesting?

Are you white, and middle class by any chance? I mean as well as being heterosexual, and male. Because if you are and you believe there's no such thing as hate speech there's a very strong reason you will have come to that totally fatuous conclusion.


Besides it's positively contrary to reality to suggest that people do not express their hatred for one another, verbally or in the written word.

If I say that because of some totally arbitrary characteristic of yours the law should allow me and anyone else who wishes to to persecute and hound you to the point where your life is unbearable and you take your own life, that is hardly a mere difference of opinion. That is an expression of the deepest contempt and hatred for you as a human being.

If I say you are less human than me, in that you have fewer human rights than I do and therefore must be less human than I am, that is hate speech because to negate your humanity is to deny that you are worthy of being treated with the rudiments of human decency. That isn't a mere difference of opinion it is an expression of deep hatred for you.


You clearly don't understand that the right to free speech is ultimately not as important a right as the right to live, the right to live without persecution. Ultimately the collective nature of modern societies requires some curtailment of the right to freedom of expression if in doing so these prior rights are protected in doing so.

Hate speech contributes to an environment in which these rights are denied, and therefore is not protected by the right to freedom of speech.

Mind you I suspect a person of your political bent to be neither all that conversant in the basic concepts inherent in Human Rights law, and probably not a great fan of that branch of law to begin with. Which is why it puzzles me that you seem to be such a fan of this one single right, the right to express hate.

I can sum up your entire argument in one self-contradictory sentence: It's unnacceptable to hate, but it's fine to make an exception when you hate haters.

If somebody started a thread launching an attack on gays/muslims/jews/*insert vulnerable minority here* all this talk of preventing "hate speech" would be dropped in an instant. Hate speech aimed at the OP would be actively encouraged due to the nature of his/her opinions, indeed, on the white woman vs mail guy thread some posters went as far as advocating extreme violence against the woman because of the views she held. But that sort of hate speech is the "right" kind (in your opinion) so can be tolerated.

This is why I'm never going to agree with you and Vinylboy et al on this issue, you're position is illogical, illiberal and frankly biggoted. I'll never associate myself with such venomous views.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

So you agree with me then, the teacher's actions were offensive and the teacher in question has been called on it, that's fair.

Oh please. Don't even try to twist my words here.
If you want to talk about the issue, IMO the teacher did exactly what he was supposed to do when he sees a student being harassed or bullied. From a civil rights perspective, his actions should not be offensive to anyone. Actions were taken against the teacher, and I personally think that it was the wrong decision. But it wasn't in my jurisdiction to decide that so what I believed should have happened is moot right now.

Like hilaire stated, hate speech contributes to an environment in which a person's right to live without persecution are denied. IMO, preserving the right to live without persecution is FAR more important than your desire to use hate speech to express your supposed anger. That's why many other people and myself are finding grievance with your stance on this thread. It has NOTHING to do with us wanting to silence you, as you so proclaim with such ideological cowardice.

Applying the rules unevenly in the classroom by censoring some students and not others is unnaceptable behaviour, as I taxpayer I wouldn't tolerate such self righteousness in UK schools and teachers like this would ideally be struck off.

In my country I'm a taxpayer too. Don't shove in my face that you pay taxes like that's supposed to exonerate you from conducting yourself in public accordingly to maintaining some kind of civic order in today's society. If you don't like the fact that teachers reprimand students in public schools for essentially verbally assaulting others, you can always look into homeschooling and perhaps not pay your taxes if you really had the balls. But you know what will happen if you did that. Don't think that because you're in the UK and I'm in the US that the rules are different either.

Their ideolgical outlook isn't welcome around young impressionable pupils.

Whose ideological outlook? The teacher who stood up to the bullying students, or the kids with the discriminating and bigoted remarks?

I'm glad we've managed to clear this up.

Oh I was already clear on this a long time ago. And I still disagree with you.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I can sum up your entire argument in one self-contradictory sentence: It's unnacceptable to hate, but it's fine to make an exception when you hate haters.

If somebody started a thread launching an attack on gays/muslims/jews/*insert vulnerable minority here* all this talk of preventing "hate speech" would dropped in an instant. Hate speech aimed at the OP would be actively encouraged due to the nature of his/her opinions, indeed, on the white woman vs mail guy thread some posters went as far as advocating extreme violence against the woman because of the views she held. But that sort of hate speech is the "right" kind (in your opinion) so can be tolerated.

This is why I'm never going to agree with you and Vinylboy et al on this issue, you're position is illogical, illiberal and frankly biggoted. I'll never associate myself with such venomous views.

I don't recall saying it was OK to hate haters. Are you having an argument with someone else?

If you think hate speech was used in the thread you're talking about why didn't you report it?

I'm afraid despite our reputation we Moderators are mere human beings and can't keep on top of every single last thread on this site and must rely to some degree on the members who should report instances of behaviour which they feel violates the site rules.

I have no problem applying the site rules regarding hate speech in a totally equal fashion and indeed the moderating team have done so, to spectacular choruses of disapproval from the members.


I think you should do your research before flinging words like hypocrisy around.


I also don't recall having expressed total, or in this thread any agreement with Vinylboy (which isn't to say I don't, or for that matter do) so I see no reason to lump us together in your attacks. Individualise them by all means.

 

[Speculator]

Like hilaire stated, hate speech contributes to an environment in which a person's right to live without persecution are denied.

You cannot have a society that is free from persecution and at the same time persecute individuals for using "hate speech", it doesn't make any sense.

Your solution doesn't abolish persucution, it just shift it's around a bit so only those that you disagree with end up being disenfranchised.

It's so obvious to me that this is the case, can't you take a step back and recognise it for yourself?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

This is why I'm never going to agree with you and Vinylboy et al on this issue, you're position is illogical, illiberal and frankly biggoted. I'll never associate myself with such venomous views.

Coming from someone who can't even spell the word bigoted, trust me when I say I couldn't careless whether or not you think my views are venomous. BTW, I'm not speaking to you as a "liberal". I'm speaking to you as a gay man who have went through similar bouts of ignorant persecution by bigots such as yourself since birth. My self identity comes before any political title you want to bestow on me.

You hide your societal bigotry behind the lame titles of "conservatism" and "liberalism", thinking those will be your shields from scrutiny when you say something ridiculous. That doesn't work here, but I heard Stormfront is looking for more members. Yeah, it's fine when someone calls me or another gay man a "faggot" because that's what they believe and it's supposed to be "free speech". But as soon as someone stands up for them, you want to think something is "wrong". I don't think I need to go into any detail how fucked up that is, and you don't have my sympathies.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

You cannot have a society that is free from persecution and at the same time persecute individuals for using "hate speech", it doesn't make any sense.

Your solution doesn't abolish persucution, it just shift it's around a bit so only those that you disagree with end up being disenfranchised.

It's so obvious to me that this is the case, can't you take a step back and recognise it for yourself?

I don't think denying someone the right to freely disseminate or promote hate constitutes persecution, and nor does Human Rights law. Your world view is deeply warped if you think that it persecutes a person to deny them the ability to persecute someone else.

 

[Speculator]

Coming from someone who can't even spell the word bigoted, trust me when I say I couldn't careless whether or not you think my views are venomous. BTW, I'm not speaking to you as a "liberal". I'm speaking to you as a gay man who have went through similar bouts of ignorant persecution by bigots such as yourself since birth. My self identity comes before any political title you want to bestow on me.

You still havn't got the hang of this whole libertarianism thing have you? The fact that you're a gay black man in an intergenerational mixed race relationship is of absolutely no interest to me, in fact I don't even know why you keep bringing it up, I certainly havn't asked about it.

The reason we're at loggerheads is because you think your living arrangements and skin colour give you the right to go around attacking anyone you choose, well sorry but that's not on. Humans deseve equal rights imo, even humans that are white, middle class straight and possibly a bit conservative.

Please keep your identity politics in a box, throwing around "isms" and "ists" is a cheap and transparent point scoring tactic. It won't win you many friends.

You hide your societal bigotry behind the lame titles of "conservatism" and "liberalism", thinking those will be your shields from scrutiny when you say something ridiculous. That doesn't work here, but I heard Stormfront is looking for more members. Yeah, it's fine when someone calls me or another gay man a "faggot" because that's what they believe and it's supposed to be "free speech". But as soon as someone stands up for them, you want to think something is "wrong". I don't think I need to go into any detail how fucked up that is, and you don't have my sympathies.

Free speech includes the right to offend. Sorry about that, but if it's a freedom you want then you have to accept it, warts and all. If you don't I'm sure there are many countries that will accomodate your wishes, I've heard China is pretty hot on this issue.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

nd

Free speech includes the right to offend. Sorry about that, but if it's a freedom you want then you have to accept it, warts and all. If you don't I'm sure there are many countries that will accomodate your wishes, I've heard China is pretty hot on this issue.

Yes the right to offend but not the right to disseminate or promote hate and persecution.

And er, you live in a country with laws against hate speech, pretty strong ones too, so there's no need to buy any tickets to Beijing just yet.

 

[Speculator]

I don't think denying someone the right to freely disseminate or promote hate constitutes persecution, and nor does Human Rights law. Your world view is deeply warped if you think that it persecutes a person to deny them the ability to persecute someone else.

Just so we're crystal clear on this, in your opinion it's ok to persecute somebody for voicing an opinion?

I find this viewpoint astonishing, and it's why I'll never agree with you.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Just so we're crystal clear on this, in your opinion it's ok to persecute somebody for voicing an opinion?

I find this viewpoint astonishing, and it's why I'll never agree with you.

Again, read what I wrote.

I don't think denying someone the right to freely disseminate or promote hate constitutes persecution, and nor does Human Rights law. Your world view is deeply warped if you think that it persecutes a person to deny them the ability to persecute someone else.

It simply isn't persecution to deny someone the ability to persecute someone else. What is so mystifying about that to you? It couldn't possiblly be simpler.

 

[Speculator]

Again, read what I wrote.

I know what you wrote, but I'll go over it one more time if it makes you happy.

I don't think denying someone the right to freely disseminate or promote hate constitutes persecution

Perhaps you don't think it's persecution but it quite clearly is, it's the persecution of those that follow a certain creed (one that you dislike). Attacking somebody because of their beliefs isn't exactly an attractive proposition, it's even worse when the assault is justified under the banner of freedom as it just adds a hefty dose of confusion into the mix. Btw all these hateful views that you'd like to see outlawed, they don't happen to coincide with all your opinions do they? That would be a coincidence!

 

[B_VinylBoy]

You still havn't got the hang of this whole libertarianism thing have you?

I don't give a damn what you call yourself. And please, stop tossing the political labels. That doesn't mean a thing in this discussion.

The fact that you're a gay black man in an intergenerational mixed race relationship is of absolutely no interest to me, in fact I don't even know why you keep bringing it up, I certainly havn't asked about it.

I'm sure you don't care. However, I posted it up there as some kind of a head's up to let you know that I speak about this from a perspective that you, a straight, heterosexual white male, would never be able to fully comprehend. It was to give you some kind of insight on a matter that you ignorantly look through a narrow-minded, ideological lens under the moniker of "libertarianism". Alas, you think you know it all and you didn't pick up on the hint.

The reason we're at loggerheads is because you think your living arrangements and skin colour give you the right to go around attacking anyone you choose, well sorry but that's not on. Humans deseve equal rights imo, even humans that are white, middle class straight and possibly a bit conservative.

Bullshit. Case in point, if someone right now called you a c****** my viewpoint wouldn't change. At that point, hate speech would be directed at you and that would be wrong. Perhaps if you paid attention to what someone says instead of ignoring the details, you'd know that I've been in a relationship with a white, middle class male for nearly 7 years. But too bad you didn't. And now you look even more ridiculous in the process.

Please keep your identity politics in a box throwing around "isms" and "ists" is a cheap and transparent point scoring tactic. It won't win you many friends.

And you're the one throwing political labels around which is your own form of "isms". Hypocrite.

Free speech includes the right to offend.

Duh, I already said that. Is there an echo in here or do you make it a point to copy/paste what was already stated by your adversaries and pretend that it's your insight? This is proof that you don't read anything I've stated at all.

Free speech includes the right to verbally offend, but that does not necessarily include "hate speech" depending on where you say it. Somehow I manage to offend you without resorting to using racial slurs. And I can do that because I have the common courtesy to not piss off others just for the sake of doing it. My issues with you don't involve anyone else, so I have the intelligence to not use words that would unfairly judge or persecute them in an open discussion. The fact that you're a Libertarian (or lean to the right) has no relevance to me. A liberal can be just as bigoted, wrong and insensitive as you are right now (and I've been in bouts with a few of them on this board too, long before you joined). But right now I'm not worried about them because when you quote my posts it's between you and me.

Also, and this is a big one, I know that hate speech is not tolerated on this board. Which is why you've been biting your lip as well when it pertains to our little debate here. Because quite honestly, since you were so free to use the n-word in a different thread just for the sake of doing it, I can tell you're foaming at the mouth to use it on me right now. Trust me, I've dealt with ignorant people like you all my life. I'm an expert at this. But go ahead and deny it anyhow.

If you don't I'm sure there are many countries that will accomodate your wishes, I've heard China is pretty hot on this issue.

I've probably been to more countries & commonwealths than you over these last several years. And ironically, treating people with respect and not engaging hate speech when people piss you off seems to be pretty universal. I dunno... maybe places like Mexico, Canada, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Haiti, Bermuda, Thailand, Cambodia, Portugal, Italy and Brazil have a different set of morals from the "countries" you visit?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I know what you wrote, but I'll go over it one more time if it makes you happy.

Perhaps you don't think it's persecution but it quite obviously is, it's the persecution of those that follow a certain creed. Attacking somebody because of their beliefs isn't exactly an attractive proposition, it makes it worse when the assault is justified under the banner of freedom. Btw all these hateful views that you'd like to see outlawed, they don't happen to coincide with all your opinons do they? That would be a coincidence!

Get real, I don't want to see anything outlawed, laws against hate speech don't deny people the right to continue to think whatever they like and privately communicate these ideas to others who agree with them. There are as yet (thankfully) no thought police.

Laws against hate speech prevent the public dissemination of ideologies of hatred and the promotion of persecution.

There is no attack involved in denying someone the ability to promote hatred.

I'll remind you again, you live in a country with pretty strict laws against hate speech, so it isn't me that decides who should be prevented from disseminating hatred it's the courts in your country.

Your country has laws against bullying and persecution in schools and the workplace, and laws against discrimination in a wide variety of contexts. It's not my opinion on someone else's views which are in question here.


If you think the right to freedom of expression and speech includes the right to promote hatred and persecution you're not only warped, but you're denying the facts of the reality in which you live.

 

[Speculator]

Get real, I don't want to see anything outlawed, laws against hate speech don't deny people the right to continue to think whatever they like and privately communicate these ideas to others who agree with them. There are as yet (thankfully) no thought police.

Laws against hate speech prevent the public dissemination of ideologies of hatred and the promotion of persecution.

There is no attack involved in denying someone the ability to promote hatred.

I'll remind you again, you live in a country with pretty strict laws against hate speech, so it isn't me that decides who should be prevented from disseminating hatred it's the courts in your country.

Your country has laws against bullying and persecution in schools and the workplace, and laws against discrimination in a wide variety of contexts. It's not my opinion on someone else's views which are in question here.


If you think the right to freedom of expression and speech includes the right to promote hatred and persecution you're not only warped, but you're denying the facts of the reality in which you live.

Laws against hate speech don't work, all those that hated each other before the bill became law still hated each other afterwards, the only difference being that now we have an increase in lawyers with bulging bank balances. It's another lawyer subsidy. The UK would do well to repeal a lot of these unnecessary and illiberal laws, the cumulative effect has created an environment where the average person has no idea what's legal or illegal anymore, that's a much greater danger to freedom than somebody ranting anti-muslim/gay/etc "hate speech" in speakers' corner.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Oh, and BTW — according to another article (which we can't post since it features the video with the minor in it), an estimated 100 other people attended that same board meeting and voiced the same opinion as the 14 year old. Clearly, this isn't an issue about "free speech" or persecuting people who think differently as some misguided people would like for you to think.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Laws against hate speech don't work, all those that hated each other before the bill became law still hated each other afterwards, the only difference being that now we have an increase in lawyers with bulging bank balances. It's another lawyer subsidy. The UK would do well to repeal a lot of these unnecessary and illiberal laws, the cumulative effect has created an environment where the average person has no idea what's legal or illegal anymore, that's a much greater danger to freedom than somebody ranting anti-muslim/gay/etc "hate speech" in speakers' corner.

That shows a breathtakingly shallow understanding of the essentials of this discussion and only proves that you really don't understand what hate speech is and how it poisons and destroys societies and the lives of people living within those societies.

If I founded an anti-white heterosexual male organisation which promoted the persecution of that demographic which caught on among a large number of people and then went on to become a concerted and powerful movement which caused you to be alienated and marginalised and threatened to make your life very difficult and unpleasant, I think you would be begging for the reintroduction of anti-hate speech laws which would have prevented the spread of this hate ideology which had negatively effected your life.

It cuts both ways, if you happened to find yourself working with a predominately Gay/black/female (whatever) set of colleagues who happened to also have some pretty offensive notions about straight white men and you encountered bullying or sexual harassment, or some form discrimination in the workplace you would find yourself in a position to seek legal redress for your troubles.

Without laws which prohibit this kind of discrimination, bullying and marginalisation in the workplace you would have no recourse and would simply have to put up and shut up or seek other employment.

 

[Speculator]

Also, and this is a big one, I know that hate speech is not tolerated on this board. Which is why you've been biting your lip as well when it pertains to our little debate here. Because quite honestly, since you were so free to use the n-word in a different thread just for the sake of doing it, I can tell you're foaming at the mouth to use it on me right now. Trust me, I've dealt with ignorant people like you all my life. I'm an expert at this. But go ahead and deny it anyhow.

The world doesn't revolve around you honeybun, you can rest assured that I have no issue with your skin colour (I know you're desperate for me to care, just so I take an interest in your life). I'm more interested in culture and ideology, unfortunately for you you've adopted the very beliefs and opinions that irk me the most: lefty, wishy-washy liberalism.

You can pull out your bag of "isms" play the victim and pretend it's about that, but it's not and never will be.

 

[Speculator]

If I founded an anti-white heterosexual male organisation which promoted the persecution of that demographic which caught on among a large number of people and then went on to become a concerted and powerful movement which caused you to be alienated and marginalised and threatened to make your life very difficult and unpleasant, I think you would be begging for the reintroduction of anti-hate speech laws which would have prevented the spread of this hate ideology which had negatively effected your life.

Isn't this organisation called New Labour? Yeah it's been awful living under their regime, but I've managed to slip between the cracks so they were never able to catch up with me!