The bar for limiting freedom of expression should be very high. The US has the 1st amendment for a reason.
Hurting someone's feelings does not meet that bar. Inciting violence does. So does financial injury.
Hurting someone's feelings does not meet that bar. Inciting violence does. So does financial injury.
If you've ever lived with depression or anxiety, you'll know that these things can lead to financial ruin and suicide. The "hurting someone's feelings" idea is so harmful and belittling to this idea. And is another way that these abusers get away with it.
"Just man up! It's just a joke! It's your fault you got offended". If that person is now afraid to leave their home, who's fault is that really?
You seem to miss the other half of the puzzle, where people who have suffered trauma in their lives often re-exhibit the same toxic behaviors that they learned. If a kid grows up under awful parents and says hurtful stuff to other people, should we jail that kid when they turn 18?
I say no.
Any good therapist will tell you that you can't control other people. What you can do is control how you react and who you associate with.
It is incumbent on each of us to find self-worth and make good decisions for our own mental health. Policing everybody else is an unwinnable game and far from the most effective strategy.
I understand having liberties to critise the government and the state. But hate speech is different and I think it's equivalent to violence in controlling groups of people with fear
Name calling doesn’t exert power over anyone, it is ultimately up to the name-callee how much power he/she allows those insults to have over them.
That is *not* to conflate name-calling with threats, slander, or libel—those are obviously separate things
Yes, this may be an extreme interpretation, but it expresses that one group is inferior, and that he is inferior because he belongs to that group. This is a power dynamic.
Does it actually express that? Or is it a term that is being reached for because someone is upset and it's a cheap insult that the insulter thinks will have a large impact?
You are looking at this stuff in very black-and-white terms. How people communicate is a lot more nuanced than you are giving it credit for.
Yes, it came from a moment of anger, but the fact it's in their mind at all implies some internalised racism and disregard for the feelings of black people.
When should insults that target a group of people be allowed just because they were angry? You're not considering the mob mentality that this causes. If people are used to hearing the n-word, they will feel more comfortable saying it. And the more they have that in their mind, the more objectifying they will be to black people.
And you feel confident saying this in general, because...?
> Yes, it came from a moment of anger, but the fact it's in their mind at all implies some internalised racism and disregard for the feelings of black people.
Human beings aren't computers. They don't do logical things. You are (probably) an engineering-type trying to apply logic & engineering concepts to the actions of people. If that worked, politics wouldn't be so disgusting.
I will offer you a piece of advice. This was hard fought for me and took a while to figure out.
All people don't act and think in the same way you do. They don't have the same motivations. They probably do not have the same values.
Your logic is "I would only use a racial slur if I were racist. They used a racial slur. Therefore, they must be racist." That's a flawed way to approach the world. You are making assumptions that don't hold. Starting with invalid assumptions is one of the best ways to fix the wrong problem.
> When should insults that target a group of people be allowed just because they were angry?
allowed != condoned != legal
I would say all of them should be legal because I see that freedom of speech is an important right. We need to be extremely selective about what things we prohibit, because allowing free speech to be eroded is dangerous.
The whole PURPOSE of free speech, after all, is to protect speech that is unpopular. You don't need a law to protect popular speech.
> You're not considering the mob mentality that this causes.
Aren't I? Inciting violence is already a crime.
> If people are used to hearing the n-word, they will feel more comfortable saying it. And the more they have that in their mind, the more objectifying they will be to black people.
I have heard that slur thrown around probably 10000:1 by black people versus anyone else. INCLUDING as a way to be intentionally hurtful.
What's interesting is, you will write this in an online forum but I'm sure you'd never say that to a black person. There would be some mental gymnastics to make a slur acceptable in this narrow scope, establishing a double-standard that has never been set for any other slur.
We're here discussing an article about a 19 year old being jailed for a slur. I would be every penny I have that you have said something at least as stupid at that age. Perhaps not a slur, but something quite hurtful nonetheless. Why? Because WE ALL DO.
Coming to the defense of black people in 2022 doesn't take a lick of courage. Trying to understand the motivations (and cringe) of a stupid 19-year-old, and finding forgiveness for that person, does.