1,000
1.00.
@BrunoParga Oh no, now this market is going to become a debate over what the slur should be.
@BrunoParga "eugies"? hmm that seems hard to catch on
@strutheo I think we are getting ahead and occupying the high ground to take over all the aggressive/cool-sounding words and make them already reserved by the pro-eugenics side
@BrunoParga yeah that's why i don't get "hate speech". since really what matters is tone, and there is no "hate tone" legislation. well, in the US at least, in scotland and EU they're advancing the SotA for censorship
@Ernie hate speech includes using words that, given their context and tone, show hate for marginalized groups. Considering the history of the societies you mention and the liberal democratic ideal of equity, it is more than proper to condemn this kind of speech before it escalates into the kind of action we've seen in the past.
@BrunoParga oh so when someone uses a certain word we can conclude they hate? Hmm that's counter indicated by lots of us reality of word usage. As well as the dramatic way words can shift from acceptable to deplorable back to acceptable again. For example see today's term people of color which is acceptable but the inversion is now forbidden, except in certain acronyms.
I'm just pointing out that it all seems fairly inconsistent
@BrunoParga I mean, I don't get why "bad word"+bad tone is hate speech, same "bad word"+ lack of tone is fine, and yet "normal words"+ bad tone is not illegal
It just seems inconsistent. If someone actually threatened violence then the specific words don't seem relevant. And given how tolerant we are of bad words when said without bad tone (ie the band NWA), hanging all the severity onto the tone seems tough judicially
@Ernie not sure you get it and not sure I want to explain further than "it's about the speech act as a whole"