In Principle or in Practice?

[Cognisant]

The Boston bombers were apparently fans (or at least one was) of the YouTube videos by an Australian Muslim extremist who has some degree of infamy here for saying among other things that women who are raped deserve it (for wearing promiscuous western clothing), he also played a role in orchestrating the fairly recent Muslim riot in Sydney.

The guy is a crackpot, he thinks the sun revolves around the Earth because he can't feel the inertia of the Earth spinning through space, which is amusing, but there's nothing funny about the man himself, the majority of the Australian Muslim community actively seek to disassociate themselves from him, but not everyone does, he has his followers among the discontent and deranged.

I think he's a danger to society, which brings me to the point of this thread, if he were to preach his hateful intolerant nonsense in any bar in Australia I reckon in short order he'd have his face busted and get thrown out, and on the sidelines we would probably cheer. That's not civilised, but on that face to face level that's how society works, there are boundaries of common decency and if someone crosses them there will be repercussions, freedom of speech be damned. But if vigilantes or the police were to respond to his YouTube videos that way there would be an uproar because it would be seen as a violation of he right to speak freely, y'know it would still be the same atrocious drivel but now you'd have people on the sidelines saying "I don't agree with what he says but I'll die for his right to say it".

It's a case of principles vs practicality and the deciding factor seems to be detachment, and I think that's hypocritical, I think more often than not people who put the principles of morality before the practically of it are really just looking out for themselves. Well all want our right to free speech to be upheld and so upholding the rights of others is in our own self interest (what goes around comes around) but I think there are times when we shouldn't, times when we should forgo self interest to deny the rights of another for the sake of society.

For example of how this already works consider police and imprisonment, as a member of society I am subject to the laws of that society, laws that restrict my freedom to an acceptable degree and if I break those laws my freedom may be restricted further, indeed I may lose it entirely. As an individual this clearly isn't in my best interests, at least not directly, but by sacrificing some of my freedom I contribute to the foundation of a safe, stable, society in which I can be relatively sure anyone who does significant wrong by me will suffer a lawful penalty.

Likewise I think as a society we should have the power to silence those that abuse their freedom of speech, people can already be charged with libel or indecent behaviour (for example it's not technically hurting anyone but if you scream obscenities outside a kindergarten the police will find something to charge you with) so why not give police the power of discretion?

Of course power can be abused, but a right to free speech is power too and in some cases it's indisputably being abused.

 

[Black Rose]

Youtube has a policy against inappropriate videos. Look for the Flag icon under thumbs down if you think a video is inappropriate. Its very simple. Why put this thread in philosophy about corporate policy?

 

[Cognisant]

Yes that was totally the point I was making, thank you so much for edifying me.

I'll go flag all his videos now, that'll totally put a stop to it, yay high five buddy!

Spoiler

 

[BigApplePi]

The Boston bombers were apparently fans (or at least one was) of the YouTube videos by an Australian Muslim extremist who has some degree of infamy here for saying among other things that women who are raped deserve it (for wearing promiscuous western clothing), he also played a role in orchestrating the fairly recent Muslim riot in Sydney.

Are those two different things? One makes a statement about women and men; the other about contributing to a riot.

The guy is a crackpot, he thinks the sun revolves around the Earth because he can't feel the inertia of the Earth spinning through space,

Is this guy a crackpot or is he so concerned about making political statements he's willing to make fun of the normal perception of things?

 

[Cognisant]

Are those two different things? One makes a statement about women and men; the other about contributing to a riot.

My point is he has views that are incompatible with a secular society, views that he acts upon by various means, now Australia isn't going to stop being a secular country just because some minority of crackpots have a problem with it, which he does not and will not accept, so in the interest of public safety I think something should be done about him, even if he does nothing violent himself there's strong cause to think he's inciting other to violence.

All in all I'm just using him as an example for my point that while the principles of morality are important we must also consider the practicality of it, in theory free speech is an absolute right, in practice absolutes just don't work, a degree of discretion is required, and if that means giving police the power to infringe upon people's rights then so be it, if the right to free speech is abused then it ought to be taken away.

Is this guy a crackpot or is he so concerned about making political statements he's willing to make fun of the normal perception of things?

Crackpot, 100% bona fide nutcase.

Believe it or not there really are people out there (and arguably here) that are just stupid, not acting stupid, not autistic or with Down's syndrome, just plain stupid for stupid's sake, there are still people around these days who think the world is flat and just over six thousand years old or that crystals and homeopathy work, I can't explain these people to you because I can't rationally comprehend them myself, they're just stupid, end of story.

 

[Nezaros]

I've always thought it would be prudent to restrict the rights of those who aren't generally beneficial to society (i.e., the stupid) but such legislation is extremely subjective by its very nature. Subjectivity in law leads to tyranny, or just a clusterfuck. So I can understand where you're coming from but law relies on principles, not practicality. If it was within our power to have practical laws we wouldn't need those laws in the first place.

 

[scorpiomover]

Damn. I was hoping this was going to be a discussion of learning vs application. Oh well. Yet another argument over "religion".

I think he's a danger to society, which brings me to the point of this thread, if he were to preach his hateful intolerant nonsense in any bar in Australia I reckon in short order he'd have his face busted and get thrown out, and on the sidelines we would probably cheer. That's not civilised, but on that face to face level that's how society works, there are boundaries of common decency and if someone crosses them there will be repercussions, freedom of speech be damned.

That'll happen in any bar in the UK, if a muslim cleric preaches Militant Islam, or if Richard Dawkins preaches Militant Atheism. Militancy is militancy. Doesn't matter which viewpoint it is from, yours, mine or anyone else.

But if vigilantes or the police were to respond to his YouTube videos that way there would be an uproar because it would be seen as a violation of he right to speak freely, y'know it would still be the same atrocious drivel but now you'd have people on the sidelines saying "I don't agree with what he says but I'll die for his right to say it".

It's a case of principles vs practicality and the deciding factor seems to be detachment, and I think that's hypocritical, I think more often than not people who put the principles of morality before the practically of it are really just looking out for themselves. Well all want our right to free speech to be upheld and so upholding the rights of others is in our own self interest (what goes around comes around) but I think there are times when we shouldn't, times when we should forgo self interest to deny the rights of another for the sake of society.

For example of how this already works consider police and imprisonment, as a member of society I am subject to the laws of that society, laws that restrict my freedom to an acceptable degree and if I break those laws my freedom may be restricted further, indeed I may lose it entirely. As an individual this clearly isn't in my best interests, at least not directly, but by sacrificing some of my freedom I contribute to the foundation of a safe, stable, society in which I can be relatively sure anyone who does significant wrong by me will suffer a lawful penalty.

Likewise I think as a society we should have the power to silence those that abuse their freedom of speech, people can already be charged with libel or indecent behaviour (for example it's not technically hurting anyone but if you scream obscenities outside a kindergarten the police will find something to charge you with) so why not give police the power of discretion?

Of course power can be abused, but a right to free speech is power too and in some cases it's indisputably being abused.

Right now, the reason that many people will support the right of such people to put up such videos, is because atheists can preach the same thing. It doesn't matter which view you preach. That's what living in a secular country means. It means that religions, atheism and agnosticism are all treated equally, relative to their POV. If atheists can talk militant about atheism, then so can everyone else about their beliefs. If muslims can't do it, then nor can anyone else, including those who preach hatred of "religion", and that would mean half the posts and videos on the internet would have to disappear.

You want to restrict free speech? Look in the mirror. That's the problem. Too many people don't want their own views restricted, and if we can't restrict their views, then we can't restrict anyone else's.

 

[Cognisant]

You want to restrict free speech? Look in the mirror. That's the problem. Too many people don't want their own views restricted, and if we can't restrict their views, then we can't restrict anyone else's.

Oh the irony.

That was my point and you pretty much admitted that it applies to you.

Damn. I was hoping this was going to be a discussion of learning vs application. Oh well. Yet another argument over "religion".

This is not just an argument about atheism and religion and the fact that you think it is just goes to show that you're more concerned about protecting your own freedom than dealing with the problem, it's exactly how you put it in the quote prior, how you missed the hypocrisy amazes me.

As for "militant" atheism, what is that? You told me to look in the mirror, so is this thread militant atheism? The Muslim preacher I mentioned has been disowned by his community, he represents them no more than the Westboro Baptists represent yourself and my point is that he, and they, and groups like them that are abusing their free speech should have it taken away.

The same should apply to militant atheists, although you may have trouble finding any, even Richard Dawkins (your example) is hardly "militant", he doesn't incite people to violence, he isn't calling for the burka to be banned or for churches to be razed, he's merely a promoter of atheism. I'm probably about as close as you'll find to a militant atheist and this thread would be the prime example, except is it not a reasonable, is this not a discussion that needs to be had?

If you don't think so by all means tell me and I'll flag it for deletion.

 

[Hadoblado]

Militant can be used to describe someone disposed to physical or verbal combat, ScorpioMover leaves ambiguity as to which one they mean, but I assume they mean verbal militancy, which IMO describes Dawkins quite well (I don't consider it a bad thing though).

I agree with Cog, though I don't know where to draw the line, or how to get the incompetent to relinquish their power of free speech without committing some vile atrocity.

Where do you stand on Holocaust denial? Should people be allowed to rewrite history through freedom of speech?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Likewise I think as a society we should have the power to silence those that abuse their freedom of speech, people can already be charged with libel or indecent behaviour (for example it's not technically hurting anyone but if you scream obscenities outside a kindergarten the police will find something to charge you with) so why not give police the power of discretion?

Of course power can be abused, but a right to free speech is power too and in some cases it's indisputably being abused.

I don't understand your example(s) in explaining principle vs practice but I agree with the above in that legally there should be free speech with reasonable moderation. I see it more in the context of social ethics though; "if you show disrespect to others why should people accept you?".

 

[walfin]

I don't see why you can't:
1. File a police report against him, especially if there is any direct instigation to commit a criminal act (which I believe would in itself be a crime)
2. File a magistrate's complaint against him or whatever is the equivalent in your state
3. File a libel suit if there's a falsehood that you could claim disparages you or your community (if you have the money)

Society already has the power to silence people even in countries that place a premium on free speech, but this is a power that must be circumscribed because of its very potent nature (since libel suits can rack up significant damages, for nothing more than saying something which someone doesn't like - the latter doesn't necessarily have real consequences but the former definitely does).

As an aside, I wouldn't agree that it's right for anyone to get his face busted just like that; if I were the owner of an establishment in which someone spouting hate speech was speaking, I'd tell him to get lost first. If he leaves the property and stops harassing others there's no reason why violence against even a hateful extremist should be condoned.

 

[Black Rose]

I think walfin has made a good point. I don't see why if there is already a legal mechanism in place that cog cannot just use it. If society is being infringed upon by people who believe in violence it is society responsibility to ethically prevent violence through secular means.

 

[Cognisant]

Well there's no problem then, nothing to discuss.

Why did I even bring it up?

 

[BigApplePi]

Cognisant

Well there's no problem then, nothing to discuss.

Why did I even bring it up?

Not to give up. There is an important issue. What are the limits of free speech and what is it for anyway? Some countries tout it; some tolerate it and some punish it. Whence what?

We want to speak out and be heard. It's in our nature. We can reach out to others ... encourage them or voice our complaints. So free speech is important. There is this reason. It's the complaints thing. Without free speech those in power will take more power because they aren't criticized. Criticism brings feedback to the distortion of power.

The other reason is creativity. It asks others to join in to create something new.

Anything else? If not, that defines the limits of free speech. Any speech which denies others the freedom to create or which actively destroys without offering rectification is not good. Depending on the degree, one can just boo the person all the way to defining laws against destructivity. Speech which suppresses others free speech is a key.

Hate speech and stupid speech?
Hate denies others freedom.
Stupid can be contagious.

 

[scorpiomover]

Oh the irony.

That was my point and you pretty much admitted that it applies to you.

But this, I already knew, and had accepted, many years before this thread even existed. It's a fundamental part of how I express myself. How could you not have noticed?

This is not just an argument about atheism and religion and the fact that you think it is just goes to show that you're more concerned about protecting your own freedom than dealing with the problem, it's exactly how you put it in the quote prior, how you missed the hypocrisy amazes me.

Well, it might have something to do with your chosen topic.

I've come across people who discussed this issue. Professor Michael Sandel discussed deontology v consequentialism. He gave an excellent example of this, such as:

If you were told that a terrorist had hijacked a plane, would you: (a) shoot the plane, and kill hundreds of innocent people on board, or (b) protect the innocent, and let the plane crash into its intended target, killing a few thousand? You save many lives if you shoot it down. But only by killing innocent people.

Another example, would be, say, raping the daughter of a terrorist. Terrorists who have been trained, would often be trained to withstand torture. But a father would do almost anything to protect his 5-year-old daughter from being raped. Would you rape his daughter, in order to get him to confess where he planted a bomb? You'd be saving many lives. You'd be saving the world from terrorism. No-one has to die. All you have to do, is to inflict paedophilia, on an unwilling 5-year-old girl.

I've also come across many xSTJs, who say "It's the principle of the thing." They'd rather follow their principles to the end, even if it is more useful in practice to choose a different path.

In your example, however, there are many on such sites as this, who would agree with you, because they believe that Muslims have no right to preach hatred in the first place. They believe that practically, it makes sense, and they believe that it is part of their principles, that such people should be silenced. There are very few, of the types of people who join sites like this, who would even think it MIGHT be a conflict.

To those who support the right of Muslims to preach hate, some will do it because they agree with extremist Muslims, and thus believe that it is good in practice as well as principle.

There is of course, the rare few, who believe that it's wrong to preach hate, but even more wrong to ban it. But those people also believe that trying to ban it, would also cause more problems in practice, in terms of long-term unforeseen consequences that most people don't even consider, aka "Black Swans". In other words, those people also believe that it's wrong to ban it, both in practice and in principle.

You happened to pick the ONE issue, that will probably amost NEVER be considered a conflict on this dichotomy, because there is currently no viewpoint who expresses this scenario as a conflict in the first place.

So if the topic involves this scenario, you've either really done the opposite of making your point, or you are not interested in principles versus practice.

As for "militant" atheism, what is that? You told me to look in the mirror, so is this thread militant atheism? The Muslim preacher I mentioned has been disowned by his community, he represents them no more than the Westboro Baptists represent yourself and my point is that he, and they, and groups like them that are abusing their free speech should have it taken away.

That's not about if one should follow principles or practice. That's just about example of short-sighted NIMBYism. Do you argue about if it is reasonable to be NIMBYist, when it's not rationally possible?

There have been a few cases of such Muslim hate clerics in the UK. It is a crime in the UK. But the very nature of their situation, made it almost impossible to do anything with them other than let them walk the streets freely, without breaking other laws. Deport them? Where to? The only countries that want these people, want to hang them. Same as execution, and the UK banned the death penalty several years ago. Put them in prison? They'd need to be in isolation, or they'd get killed. Same problem. Put them in isolation? It's torture. I'm simplifying the arguments here. But the courts did have to deliberate on each of those cases long and hard, and their situation was in and out of the courts for years, because every option that was tried or attempted, threw up major legal wrangles.

In most people's viewpoint, the issue is not in conflict.

But in terms of the actual laws of Western countries, we couldn't do anything with them, that would not violate some part of the constitution, without endangering people's lives.

The same should apply to militant atheists, although you may have trouble finding any, even Richard Dawkins (your example) is hardly "militant", he doesn't incite people to violence, he isn't calling for the burka to be banned or for churches to be razed, he's merely a promoter of atheism.

Not exactly. He compared a child being raised in a religion, as child abuse. Here is the thing: a lot of suspected child abusers got their houses fire-bombed. A woman was attacked here in the UK, just because she was a paediatrician, and people got it mixed up with PAEDO, as in, paedophile If the police even question anyone on TV for child abuse, and people find out, like it makes the papers, even if they are found 100% innocent, and we know for sure they never did that, their career is over. They get their houses fire-bombed, and their lives destroyed.

Seriously, if people ever listen to you, you NEVER suggest that someone is a child abuser, EVER, not unless you want to promote people's houses fire-bombed, themselves beaten up, and be hounded until they move or end their lives. People are just too emotional these days about paedophilia to not get violent over it. So yes, people who say that, are committing hate crimes, of the worst nature.

I'm probably about as close as you'll find to a militant atheist and this thread would be the prime example, except is it not a reasonable, is this not a discussion that needs to be had?

If you don't think so by all means tell me and I'll flag it for deletion.

As I wrote, the discussion is. But the way you put most of it about this one topic, sounds like Islamophobia to me. But you can salvage it, if you accept that, even if the entire planet agreed with you, you still might not be able to put him in prison, because it might violate the constitution and the laws of your country, and these are laws you don't want to get rid of, because they protect you far more than they protect him. He's a very rare care. You are the majority which cops like to beat up and abuse. Your life is saved from great suffering from those laws, which in turn, protect him.

Would you be willing to violate the constitution, to put him in jail?

 

[Cognisant]

If you were told that a terrorist had hijacked a plane, would you: (a) shoot the plane, and kill hundreds of innocent people on board, or (b) protect the innocent, and let the plane crash into its intended target, killing a few thousand? You save many lives if you shoot it down. But only by killing innocent people.

Simple enough.

Another example, would be, say, raping the daughter of a terrorist. Terrorists who have been trained, would often be trained to withstand torture. But a father would do almost anything to protect his 5-year-old daughter from being raped. Would you rape his daughter, in order to get him to confess where he planted a bomb? You'd be saving many lives. You'd be saving the world from terrorism. No-one has to die. All you have to do, is to inflict paedophilia, on an unwilling 5-year-old girl.

I'd shoot her, in the foot, them the other foot, then hand, etc.
If that doesn't work I see no reason to think raping her will.

Even if raping her was absolutely the only way and I was 100% sure it would work there's still the matter of my reluctance to do so relative to the value of saving lives, y'know being a misanthrope doesn't make me a pedophile.

In your example, however, there are many on such sites as this, who would agree with you, because they believe that Muslims have no right to preach hatred in the first place. They believe that practically, it makes sense, and they believe that it is part of their principles, that such people should be silenced. There are very few, of the types of people who join sites like this, who would even think it MIGHT be a conflict.

To those who support the right of Muslims to preach hate, some will do it because they agree with extremist Muslims, and thus believe that it is good in practice as well as principle.

Do you?

There is of course, the rare few, who believe that it's wrong to preach hate, but even more wrong to ban it. But those people also believe that trying to ban it, would also cause more problems in practice, in terms of long-term unforeseen consequences that most people don't even consider, aka "Black Swans". In other words, those people also believe that it's wrong to ban it, both in practice and in principle.

Why? What problems?

If you're saying giving police the power to arrest people for advocating hate will automatically lead to an abuse of that power, well frankly that's a strawman argument, I think it's a given assumption that they wouldn't be able to charge people without evidence, that the defendant will be able to appeal the charge, or if they're arrested they'll receive a fair trail.

You happened to pick the ONE issue, that will probably amost NEVER be considered a conflict on this dichotomy, because there is currently no viewpoint who expresses this scenario as a conflict in the first place.

So if the topic involves this scenario, you've either really done the opposite of making your point, or you are not interested in principles versus practice.

And yet we're having this conversation

That's not about if one should follow principles or practice. That's just about example of short-sighted NIMBYism. Do you argue about if it is reasonable to be NIMBYist, when it's not rationally possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY

What?

There have been a few cases of such Muslim hate clerics in the UK. It is a crime in the UK. But the very nature of their situation, made it almost impossible to do anything with them other than let them walk the streets freely, without breaking other laws. Deport them? Where to? The only countries that want these people, want to hang them. Same as execution, and the UK banned the death penalty several years ago. Put them in prison? They'd need to be in isolation, or they'd get killed. Same problem. Put them in isolation? It's torture. I'm simplifying the arguments here. But the courts did have to deliberate on each of those cases long and hard, and their situation was in and out of the courts for years, because every option that was tried or attempted, threw up major legal wrangles.

Because of people like you

In most people's viewpoint, the issue is not in conflict.

But in terms of the actual laws of Western countries, we couldn't do anything with them, that would not violate some part of the constitution, without endangering people's lives.

Which just goes to show the disconnect between the legal system and common sense, as a society we simply don't trust the discretion of judges and the police so instead we have lawyers arguing semantics, precedence, and all sorts of bullshit, because we trust the written letter of the law more than the discretion of people trained and experienced in dealing with these matters.

At this rate we could eventually replace the entire legal system with a big computer and data entry workers mindlessly working their way through paperwork, the fate of the defendants being decided based upon by a vast database of archaic and esoteric rules, with no human discretion given to the actual matter at hand.

Ironically that's pretty much a determinist's view of Anarchy.
Incredibly orderly anarchy

Not exactly. He compared a child being raised in a religion, as child abuse. Here is the thing: a lot of suspected child abusers got their houses fire-bombed. A woman was attacked here in the UK, just because she was a paediatrician, and people got it mixed up with PAEDO, as in, paedophile If the police even question anyone on TV for child abuse, and people find out, like it makes the papers, even if they are found 100% innocent, and we know for sure they never did that, their career is over. They get their houses fire-bombed, and their lives destroyed.

Seriously, if people ever listen to you, you NEVER suggest that someone is a child abuser, EVER, not unless you want to promote people's houses fire-bombed, themselves beaten up, and be hounded until they move or end their lives. People are just too emotional these days about paedophilia to not get violent over it. So yes, people who say that, are committing hate crimes, of the worst nature.

He compared it to child abuse, he didn't say it was, he certainly didn't advocate firebombing people's houses and I think it's safe to assume that if he thought his comparison was even partly the cause of such behaviour he would retract it immediately and vehemently condemn the actions of the fire bombers.

Whereas there are people right now actively advocating such behaviour.
A world of difference is it not?

As I wrote, the discussion is. But the way you put most of it about this one topic, sounds like Islamophobia to me. But you can salvage it, if you accept that, even if the entire planet agreed with you, you still might not be able to put him in prison, because it might violate the constitution and the laws of your country, and these are laws you don't want to get rid of, because they protect you far more than they protect him. He's a very rare care. You are the majority which cops like to beat up and abuse. Your life is saved from great suffering from those laws, which in turn, protect him.

I call strawman and borderline ad hominem.

Would you be willing to violate the constitution, to put him in jail?

Yes, I've said as much already and I'll say it again, I am willing to limit my own freedom of speech to ensure such proponents of hate are silenced.

 

[BigApplePi]

Principle or in Practice?

I am willing to limit my own freedom of speech to ensure such proponents of hate are silenced.

If someone wants to preach hate, what do we do? Operate on some principle or practice something to stop it?

You all are scum.
That's slander. I will sue you.

You all are scum.
There is a law against hate speech. I'm reporting you.

You all are scum.
I will silence you even if my hatred for you means I will be silenced.

You all are scum.
I will let you speak so when it's my turn I can speak.

You all are scum.
I am not scum. Here are my reasons ...

You all are scum.
Prove it. No. Now you're spewing more hatred.

You all are scum.
You have a point. Maybe I am scum. What did I do to you?

You all are scum.
You are entitled to your opinion; mine differs.

You all are scum.
I'm ignoring you.

You all are scum.
I'm telling everyone else to ignore you.

You all are scum.
Go somewhere else. NIMBY.

You all are scum.
I'm giving my own speech about love versus hatred.

 

[Cognisant]

There is a law against hate speech. I'm reporting you.

That one.

I'm not really concerned about the one off cases or the generally resentful, I'm talking about the people who seem to make it their mission to make the world a worse place, who condone and advocate violence. They don't do it themselves but if someone actively seeks out impressionable people and impresses upon them the motivation to go out and commit violent acts, then they've achieved what they set out to do and gotten away with it.

When I look at the Boston bombers I can't help thinking they're really young, to be hateful enough to go out and do something like that, where does that hate come from, what could have possibly happened to them over the course of their relatively short lives to motivate to committing an atrocity like this?

I actually feel sorry for the younger brother, granted I don't know him, I don't know anything about his circumstances, but intuitively I get the impression that he's just somebody's pawn, to young and stupid to see the full picture of what he's gotten himself into.

I may be wrong.

Now this thread IS NOT an attack on religion, I could have made it that, there's definitely a connection there, but I don't think the actions of these two represent the American Muslim community, or even the global Muslim community, so this isn't about religion itself, but it is about how freedom of religion can be abused and hence why the freedom of religion and the freedom of free speech cannot be without terms.

Believe or not, words can kill people too.

 

[Brontosaurie]

wtf is this thraed pls give understantion

 

[BigApplePi]

That one.

... I'm talking about the people who seem to make it their mission to make the world a worse place, who condone and advocate violence ...
Believe or not, words can kill people too.

There is all sorts of suffering in this world.

When the suffering is due to nature, man will fight. He will make sea walls, damns, umbrellas and overcoats.

When the suffering is due to his fellow man, his tribe will fight. He will make spears, armor, nuclear bombs and propaganda.

A tribe will defend their territory. What if you hear the other tribe call you, "towel heads" or make fun of your religious leader? What if you are a businessman of the West who wears padded shoulders and a rope-cloth around your neck and the other tribe expresses contempt? What if your tribe visits the other tribe, trades for their main commodity but shows them no respect because their laws seem barbaric? What if you are a friend of the other tribes worst enemy?

Are these reasons for hate speech? Do we stop the speaker or do we decide to look into why he is so upset?

 

[Cognisant]

Why can't we do both?