So yeah, whether the speech act counts as an act of violence is incidental to the speaker being culpable.

If you have time, take a look at at least the first few pages of Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts. It elicited an interesting discussion. At issue is the extent to which a perlocution is separable from an illocution.

Does all this then mean you approve of the political correctness which societally, though not legally, mitigates hate speech as previously defined, this as the optimal mode of societal checks and balances?

Not at all. I disapprove. I’m just trying to argue that speaking speech that can be construed as hate speech is riskier than hearing it.

’m baffled by your once again separating politics from ethics/morality. — javra

I thought you wanted to separate out the politics.

Can the issue of hate speech be addressed without embarking on perceived issues of political victimization? — javra

Because I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about what is right and beneficial. — javra

I’m baffled myself.

you previously agreed the two are entwined — javra

Well, morality is entwined in every human interaction.

This would mean not separate. — javra

But we can separate things to talk about them. I thought that was what you were trying to do.

So back to non-legally sanctioned systems of checks and balances. — javra

Exactly.

hate speech is bad for society, — javra

Yes.

it is dangerous to criminalize — javra

Yes (and, to me, discussion around this point is the heart of discussion of the term “hate speech”)

and the preservation of free speech should bring about a system of checks and balances within society to mitigate [hate speech]. — javra

Close enough. (We probably agree here too. I might say here that, by keeping political debate free, we protect an opportunity resolve differences. So not so reliant on the emergence of checks and balances, but just opportunity to argue it out.

For my part, I’ll leave it at that. — javra

I’ll consider it left. :up:

Why would we have advertising, prayer, speeches or Fox News if language was powerless?

Just curious, but how many products have you bought in ratio to how many advertisements you’ve seen? Using the power of your speech, perhaps you can convince those who say “nay” to hate speech legislation to believe otherwise. Both of these demonstrations ought to inform you on just how powerful speech really is, and that we’re not just thinking magically.

I’ve been swayed by advertisements many times, most people I know have. Bought plenty of things I didn’t need. I’ve also been convinced to do things by compelling rhetoric - it’s not magic, just how people behave. But I lack the disposition for debate and so I will leave you unmoved. :wink:

Fair enough, I’ll take your word for it. But there is another way to frame it, and it doesn’t involve attributing to scratches on paper and articulated sounds from the mouth special powers and unseen forces. Perhaps your disposition is to blame for your purchases, and not the words.

The point of hate speech laws was the ability to turn state crimes into federal ones for the purposes of trials being taken out of places considered too bigoted to adjudicate properly.

If you have time, take a look at at least the first few pages of Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts. It elicited an interesting discussion. At issue is the extent to which a perlocution is separable from an illocution. — Banno

I'll try to check it out. Thanks.

I am late to this thread, but glad I read it, lots of interesting comments. If not too late, some of my thoughts.

Agreed with the OP - the term, as currently deployed, does not have utility.

Incitement to violence, as in Rwanda, via hate, clearly a different matter.

I know that so many oppose 'wokism'. However, this may be about allowing bullying and legitimising forms of oppression in the name of 'freedom to express hate', as a human right. — Jack Cummins

You can contend with the bullying without using the term 'hate' which is of course subjective. One of the things I, ahem, hate about wokeness is that it can encourage this framing. As a teacher, I seldom encountered anything 'hateful' in hallways or classrooms, but I always wondered how often the concept of hate replaces the concept of bullying. And what of bullying towards those with no 'hated' identity category?

I find it difficult to consider a 'hierarchy' of traumas for children. A straight white boy experiencing bullying will experience plenty of negative feelings. I fear the concept of hate obscures this in some cases.

I am a free speech absolutist. To my knowledge, there are no hate speech laws in the US, but here in Canada, we have them. We nearly had one that would have criminalized future speech. I kid you not.

And in the UK, people are being reported for non-crime hate incidents on a daily basis. Think of that Father Ted guy getting arrested at the airport over three tweets.

I find myself despairing somewhat to see US conservatives now invoking hate speech the way we Canadians do, despite the laws being so very different. So many US leaders, across the spectrum, seem to misunderstand free speech principles - the oft abused 'shouting fire in a theatre' meme, for example.

Hate is an inherently high resolution word. Intensity corresponds with specificity. Go ahead and check within - the things you hate most are very specific. So are the people.

By contrast, the hate speech version requires a lower resolution target - and so a lower intensity dislike. The territory of hate speech is much more like out-group etiquette than hatred. — Roke

Well said. I am enjoying your comments throughout.

Can the issue of hate speech be addressed without embarking on perceived issues of political victimization? — javra

Great question. Probably not? I certainly don't see anyone out policing hate speech against white people - the premise is viewed as laughable. There are certainly plenty of statements made by, say, DEI advocates about whites that would be considered hate if it were directed toward a group with less power.

It comes down to the power of the relative power of the group, a phenomenon we all witnessed when jews went from oppressed to oppressor overnight on Oct. 7th. (an oversimplification, for sure)

One of the dangers of 'hate speech' is that we don't know the demographics of the groups doing the hate speaking, but we know the culprit is likely 'white supremacy'. How hate speech by Muslims towards Jews represents 'white supremacy' is where things get dicey.

If 'power' is central to the definition of 'hate speech', that's just another subjective term that can be misused. Those who speak in the language of power certainly have plenty of 'power' - educational privilege, class privilege, etc.... Trudeau, calling voters opposed to his open-door immigration policies 'racist' seemed to be punching down, not up.

It is just too easy to abuse the language for tribal purposes.

I do wonder how much of the explosion in accusations of hate speech is due to the availability heuristic?

This is the best thing I've read on free speech in the wake of the Kirk murder. Greg Lukianoff is a progressive free speech champion. Glad to see conservative "The Free Press" giving him the platform.

https://www.thefp.com/p/bury-the-words-are-violence-cliche

"We need maximal tolerance for speech; zero tolerance for force".

I agree with Lukianoff.

Speech is not violence. That is a pretty un-crossable line in definition and usage. Trying to shoe-horn 'violence' into words is an expansion of meaning which loses meaning and creates more ambiguity than clarity. Its something we should reject entirely.

A straight white boy experiencing bullying will experience plenty of negative feelings. — Jeremy Murray

Does a boy really know what sexuality is? What straight is? What race or being "white" is? They do not.

They know colors. Which have no meaning other than the visual perception they experience. Growing up, me and an African American boy would play hide and seek. Once or twice we would joke "Hey, that's no fair! It's getting dark, (boy's name here) is gonna hide and we'll never be able to find him!" And we all laughed and joked, equally. Sure, I suppose in hindsight that was "racist" but, not really, because we had no deeper meaning of the term. It didn't mean anything. So we all laughed together. Sure, it's not that way as an adult. No, not by far. But my point is, kids don't process any deeper meaning behind the words beyond what the words suggest.

Does a boy really know what sexuality is? What straight is? What race or being "white" is? They do not. — Outlander

They do. My son is 8 and extremely feminine. He is acutely aware of how this will follow him through life.

My son is 8 and extremely feminine — AmadeusD

How's that? Is he smaller than others? Daintier? That means nothing, that's size-ism. Just because a person is born larger and another person is born smaller doesn't mean the larger person is a better person.

Does he talk with a lighter voice? That also means nothing, that's hormone-ism. Just because a person is born with a hormone or pituitary gland imbalance, doesn't mean they're a better person.

Is he more "whimsical", enjoying things like frolicking through the flowers and uh, just being a kid? Yeah. That's called just being a kid. Just because a person likes to express themself without caring what others think, doesn't mean they're a better person.

Can't you see those who think otherwise are slaves? Sure, there's more of them. And they're larger and stupider, therefore more violent. But does that really matter?

Just because some hypothetical other kid is larger. stronger, and what not, essentially a dull, basic rock-like form of existence that has no passion or intelligence or sense of joy, that will go through life pretending they do, doesn't mean you can compare that unfortunate being as "masculine" and another more spirited child as "feminine."

It just makes no sense. It's anti-human, really.

If you think he's too "whimsical", teach him discipline through physical work. Hard work. Like mowing the lawn or harvesting a field. He should be sore and sweaty after. I'd wager, he's just thin and so moves "daintily" compared to other children. That's a purely skeletal and locomotive trait. Nothing to do with gender, hormones, or sexuality. Thinner people need less testosterone because they have less muscle tone and require less energy to move about. Making sense yet? Perhaps he likes bright colors and ponies and whatnot. That doesn't mean anything but what you allow society to dictate it as. All that means is he has more intelligence to appreciate art and culture. Getting through to you now?

That has nothing to do with sexuality.

He is acutely aware of how this will follow him through life. — AmadeusD

95% of cases, it's 100% about size. Miserable people have the most kids, they're the lions share of humans alive on this rock. That means, they are raised by terrible people and have no guidance, they see their parents flaws, who in turn irrationally act out (they are also mentally ill, yes, most people alive are mentally ill by all legitimate, medical standard) are fully aware, and so take it out on the world around them. So they will bully smaller "happier" children. Now, if your kid was larger, they wouldn't dare. See what's going on here? The "strong" (mentally weak, or raised by the mentally weak) pick on the "weak" (physically smaller) because it's the only thing they can do to feel adequate being raised by mentally-weak subhumans who don't know how to raise children and should have no business having any.

Stuff like this is why I'm a staunch monarchist and royalist. Those Made to be subject to a Lord rebelled, killed those Made to be their appointed leaders, (I won't even get into the Biblical repercussions they'll face eternally), and that's the world we live in. For now. All I'm saying is, don't let this silly world be your kids mother and father. That's supposed to be your job.

Does a boy really know what sexuality is? What straight is? What race or being "white" is? They do not. — Outlander

Hello Outlander. I appreciate you commenting on my post! But I think these questions are nutso.

And, irrelevant. Who cares if they know definitions of these terms that you approve of? Kids do feel and think and know things. If the outcome of a belief system damages children, it is a problem.

Miserable people have the most kids, they're the lions share of humans alive on this rock. That means, they are raised by terrible people and have no guidance, they see their parents flaws, who in turn irrationally act out (they are also mentally ill, yes, most people alive are mentally ill by all legitimate, medical standard) are fully aware, and so take it out on the world around them. So they will bully smaller "happier" children. Now, if your kid was larger, they wouldn't dare. See what's going on here? The "strong" (mentally weak, or raised by the mentally weak) pick on the "weak" (physically smaller) because it's the only thing they can do to feel adequate being raised by mentally-weak subhumans who don't know how to raise children and should have no business having any. — Outlander

Lot of judgement here.

But setting that aside, "most people alive are mentally ill by all legitimate, medical standard" is, again, nutso.

Mental illness is not really subject to 'legitimate mental standard'. Psychology is, what, 150 years old? Mental illness is a different concept from physical illness.

Calling people who act poorly 'mentally ill' is insulting to those of us with mental illnesses. It is insulting to victims of those acting poorly. Etc.

You can't force people not to suck. None of what you have written here is 'making sense yet'. What are you suggesting?

With all the commotion about consequences of negative comments about Charlie Kirk, would/should this then have consequences?

Here is the same woman — the one with the “Z Crimea” car.
First of all, if you live in Virginia, you can file a complaint with the DMV. I know some of you have already done so — thank you.

A reminder about the realtor from Shepherd Homes Group (Virginia / Washington, D.C.) who openly supports Putin and the “special military operation.” Her name is Vasa Zenchenko (also known as Vasa Farafontova).

After the second day of the Russian “bazaar,” this propagandist drove up to the protesters, including myself, turned on the Russian national anthem, and started proudly dancing. Her child was wearing a hat that said “Russia.”

Her mother, Anna Ivanovna Zenchenko-Farafontova, is listed in the Myrotvorets database for: – Promoting war and Russian fascism and Nazism – Publicly supporting Russian aggression and the killing of Ukrainian civilians – Undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – Being complicit in crimes committed by the Russian regime against Ukraine and its citizens Vasa continues her mother’s work here in the U.S., also using a church partly affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate as cover. — marisonechko · Oct 8, 2025 · 37s

DMV will deny applications for personalized license plates in accordance with the Personalized License Plate Issuance Guidelines set forth below. DMV will cancel and recall any personalized license plates which were issued and later discovered to be in violation of the Guidelines.

• Used to condone or encourage violence — Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles: Personalized License Plate Guidelines and Restrictions

I don't see a case myself. Technically maybe, but otherwise too wishy-washy. Then again, if you could be threatened/fired for airing something negative about Kirk, or get picked up by ICE for airing something against Israel?

It's really hard to respond to this. You have asked questions that you've answered yourself on the entire way through, and added in plenty of nonsensical crap besides it (i do not mean to be pejorative, but that's what's coming across). I'll do my best:

How's that? Is he smaller than others? Daintier? — Outlander

No. He's generally larger than other kids. He will be far above average in height later in life.

Does he talk with a lighter voice? — Outlander

No. I can't understand why you're trying to talk about things I haven't said.

Is he more "whimsical", enjoying things like frolicking through the flowers and uh, just being a kid? Yeah. That's called just being a kid. — Outlander

I take it you do not have and have never spent much time with kids if you think this. A common problem for those commenting on human behaviour.

He is much more 'whimsical'. And that is feminine. Quite obviously. Objecting to this just lead to my above comment..

If you think he's too "whimsical", — Outlander

I don't think he's 'too' anything. You've made up some crap to talk about again here. I'll not engage.

Can't you see those who think otherwise are slaves? — Outlander

I quite squarely don't know what hte heck you're asking here. You posited a load of crap I didn't say, intimate or agree with and then ask me questions in the face of those positions. I can't really do that my dude.

Now, if your kid was larger, they wouldn't dare. See what's going on here? The "strong" (mentally weak, or raised by the mentally weak) pick on the "weak" (physically smaller) because it's the only thing they can do to feel adequate being raised by mentally-weak subhumans who don't know how to raise children and should have no business having any. — Outlander

I didn't mention him being bullied. I actually didn't mention any of this. You seem to be extremely angry at something that wasn't said, intimated or even hinted at by inference. I quite honestly do not know hte purpose of this repsonse other than to have a bit of a rant for yourself.

My son is very feminine. He does not get on with other boys as a matter of taste. He gets on with girls. Girly girls. He prefers feminine objects, activities and all else under the sun. We are not traditional parents in the gender sense, nor is his school traditional in this sense. Humans have fundamental inherent tendencies. Pretending that isn't hte case is anti-human.

But I think these questions are nutso. — Jeremy Murray

That's fine, well, odd, if not disturbing, since you claim to be a professional who works with children. Or was that someone else?

The majority of the world, and all reputable science acknowledges the brain is not developed until well beyond adolescence and so children cannot be trusted to decide what's best for themselves or what they think they know. They are highly malleable, easily influenced, and can be led to believe anything. This is common knowledge and codified legal fact everywhere on Earth, which is why children are not legal adults until the age of ~18. Just for some real world context that cares not about your outlying and atypical opinion.

Suggesting a young child does not and cannot intimately and deeply know what sexuality or race is, was more of a statement. A common sense statement. The literal farthest thing from "nutso", since it is in fact normal, widely-held belief. If you cannot understand basic human nature, you have no business working with any child anywhere. Period. Sure, a young person can get aroused by human contact and feel "different" per release of hormones and various signals the brain sends to the body, that's normal. Sure, you can tell that your skin is one color and that another person's might be a different color. But these are surface level, beginnings of understanding what it means to be human, not indicative of anything, let alone set in stone just because you've been led to believe they prove something absolutely that will be inherent to the person's entire adult life.

It's really hard to respond to this. — AmadeusD

Then don't. The world and intelligent people are in charge and will decide what's best for children when adults fail to. You can bet your life on that.

Furthermore, just because you don't like, agree with, or understand something doesn't mean it's "crap", especially when it's a widely held belief the majority of the world holds and science, morals, and basic cultural and societal fabric supports and stands behind.

You're simply mistaken. It's not that big a deal, it happens to everyone at some point in life.

No. I can't understand why you're trying to talk about things I haven't said. — AmadeusD

I didn't "try" to talk about anything. I successfully asked a question. Not a statement-within-a-question, a simple question. A highly-relevant question that acknowledges common patterns of discrimination and prejudice toward people who are diverse or atypical in tone of voice or physical structure—surface-level, superficial traits that commonly result in illegitimate, ill-formed, and myopic opinion-heavy "determinations" of "feminine" vs. "masculine." Your answer was no. Moving on.

He is much more 'whimsical'. And that is feminine. — AmadeusD

And? He's a kid. Kids grow up. You can't predict a human beings entire life based on the first few years. Not for certain. So he likes expressing himself. Maybe he'll be the next rock star or something. You don't know. No one does. So don't act like you do.

I didn't mention him being bullied. I actually didn't mention any of this. — AmadeusD

No one said you did. Simply these are common traits that occur in children who act differently than their peers. Sometimes bullying/ostracization is because they are different, other times it's just what happens that leads to one becoming and acting differently as a coping strategy. This is basic psychology. I notice you don't say "he's not", which leads one to believe, perhaps I was correct, and if so, you should listen to people who are correct about topics and persons they seem to have no way of knowing anything about personally. That's called wisdom.

--

I understand it's a tough, personal topic. None of my business. Nothing to discuss with a stranger in front of more strangers. You don't have to reply. Still, this post must be posted so as to educate and reach as many as possible who might be reading who have the same misunderstandings as you, even if such education fails to reach you yourself. If at least two people discover the truth and are now free from falsehood, when one might not, that's still a win for humanity and all that is good, right, and proper.