Constant dehumanization of people does not eventually lead to physical violence?
someone somewhere must believe that they should do something about these bad people.
your argument at best is in bad faith
someone somewhere must believe that they should do something about these bad people.
your argument at best is in bad faith
I disagree (although this was a question more than an argument)
>Constant dehumanization of people does not eventually lead to physical violence?
What it might lead to is irrelevant, the act of speech does not impede anything and a lot of things have the potential to lead to violence, yet legalizing it is arbitrary at best
[edit] A citation: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.asp...
Edit: i also understood the basic rights to be a property of the system rather than the actions of people; e.g. you should be free whatever people think of you; right to happiness whatever enemies you have, etc. If words can deprive you of dignity, then it seems as though the system is not giving you the feeling of safety in your rights that you should be expecting. This seems like a more logical application of the rights; since you cannot force respect out of others but can force the system to honor its promises.
On the other hand the problem is not about "thinking" hateful things (and there is a distinction about hateful and respectful that you seem to gloss over) but saying those things with the specific intention of lowering a person's (or group of persons) sense of self and dignity.
It absolutely does. It leads to a climate of fear for those affected by it, especially once it becomes widespread.
I agree with words being able to elicit strong emotional response in people, but I disagree that this should serve as a basis for legislation. I do not think it is a strong enough basis to risk affecting the spread of ideas and discourse.