by throw10920 | 2025-07-04 04:32:49+00:00
Your response is entirely composed of of irrelevant statements, logical fallacies, and emotional outbursts when you can't muster up a fallacy. Statements like "your position of wanting to be allowed to dehumanize people will lose" indicate a chronic inability to actually think like a rational being - you're ruled by your emotions. You should work on being able to control your emotions rather than believing that your emotional outbursts make you not wrong.

> All law and words are manufactured.

Completely irrelevant to my response to your statement. Your statement was "I have no difficulty seeing the difference between hate speech and criticism of the state." and that's because you are inventing the difference between concepts. It does not exist, and that fact has nothing to do with the fact that words and laws are manufactured by humans.

> And?

If you had read two sentences further, you would have seen the "and" - that there is no consensus definition. The fact that the concept itself is so recent reinforces that. That's pretty easy to see if you read the whole paragraph.

> Would love to you point to an example of this that isn't racist or bigoted :)

I already did. Also, calling out the emotional manipulation in your comment in substitute for any actual point.

> I could ask anyone in Texas (my home state) the legally required pre-driving check that must be performed before operating a motor vehicle

Completely irrelevant, yet again. Laws are categorically different than concepts. The fact is that the concept of "hate speech" does not have anything close to a consensus definition. If you ask a sample of people in Texas what a "car" is, you will get a consensus definition of a car (and because I know you're going to try to be pedantic: to a very high level of fidelity, again unlike "hate speech"), because that's a shared concept in way that "hate speech" is not.

> Lmfao I knew there was some racist shit behind your position

Yet again, substitution of emotion for, well, the ability to think.

> It's absolutely racist to imply that Afghanistanian refugees are rapists, which is exactly what the tweet does

No, it does not imply that - you are reading it like that, because your brain has been conditioned to view everything through the lens of racism, and you cannot fathom that there are things other than race (such as the refugees coming from a different culture, coming from a different legal environment, or not being treated legally in the same way as other individuals because of their refugee status) in Afghanistan that can result in the problem of sexual assault. Heck, the presumption that if you come from Afghanistan, you must be Afghani (or of a particular race), wildly exceeds your own standards for what racism is.

Additionally, reality is not racist. The fact is that there is a huge problem with sexual assault and violence from Middle Eastern refugees in Europe. Pointing out that, regardless of whether the problem is cultural, racial (which would be false - this is not a race problem, but a cultural problem), or due to different legal environments or treatment, there is a problem, is not racist. This is a fact. Again: reality is not racist, and pointing out reality is not racist.

> Law should be decided by popular consensus?

Again, multiple fallacies and total failures of logic. First, you're conflating concepts/morality and laws. Those are obviously not the same. You are making moral arguments about "hate speech" that the laws must necessarily flow from. In your original comment you stated "You don't feel there's a difference between a State banning criticism of the State, and a State passing anti-hate speech laws to protect people from, e.g., nazis?" - that is a moral argument, not a legal one. Second - no, I did not make any argument that would imply that "law should be decided by popular consensus" - that's your failure to read what I wrote.

A misunderstanding that you then proceed to spend a paragraph working off of. Again, you have an inability to actually think logically, and instead just try to frame everything into a race issue, and then emotionally react to it. You finish with

> your position of wanting to be allowed to dehumanize people will lose

No, that is not my position - and you know that. The only person doing any dehumanizing here is you - you are intentionally misreading my point, because you want to turn this into a "racists vs anti-racists" issue that you can then use to justify dehumanizing those you perceive to be racist (me, and politicians).

> a more subtle understanding of race relations

Again with the race. Everything is about race and racism.

> why this desire to defend racist politicians

And again.

> Cause, that's your argument here, and as of yet the only people that have been negatively affected by these hate speech laws are racists.

And again.

And the fallacy that outcomes justify perversion of principles. And the labeling of others as "racist" when you have honestly close to zero idea what their actual principles are, and then the logically, legally, and morally insane idea that just because someone is a racist means that they deserve to be legally punished. That claim doesn't even need to be defended against, because it's insane. (it's not really falsifiable, either, because you can always claim that someone is a closet racist, even without evidence)

You should wait to respond to this comment until you can actually learn to use logic at the high-school level, and have the emotional maturity and control of (at least) a college grad. You have categorically not demonstrated either of those things so far.