A suggestion: Being objective we have to drop the idea of "Hate Speech" being a thing in favor of Freedom of Speech. What we can replace the term "Hate Speech" with is the term "Conflict of Opinion".
Its the same thing, first of all. If I want to call something 'Hate Speech' we there have a conflict of opinion. If there is no ground for a reasonable conversation - then I guess its fair to call it Hate Speech (because the Speech isn't social) - but that also just kindof.
The next thing is that its different. Hate Speech is a thing thats difficult to respond to. So the logical conclusion must be that of banning it. Somehow making it away. If we however call it a Conflict of Opinion we have more logical resources to deal with the issue - like - its a conflict and so the saying "Violence begets Counter-violence" kicks it.
I have to admit though: Punching Nazis seems fun! I can even twist the Bible around to support it. So, left cheek, right cheek thing. So, the Nazi doing Hate Speech is a punch in my face. By punching him I thereby offer him the other side of my cheek.
But the first dude that would need to be Violently deplatformed would be Trump.
I mean - its not like Climate Change isn't a big deal! Question to all those Climate Change deniers: Would they love to be put into a Cryogenic Chamber to wait 100 years for the consequences and talk to the people of that time about their beliefs on the matter? Of course they would say 'yes' because they don't claim that things will go to shit. And anything you might say ... they don't have to comprehend.
I feel like I need to apologize. I'm ... loaded. Charged. Fuming. Its an intellectual outrage - or outcry - ... there should be punishment for vehemently spreading misinformation. For as long as there is no scientific process involved. If I so stand there calling Climate Change a hoax and I'm totally ignoring all the ways to be reasonable about it - what do?
Sure, let that dumbass stand there and educate the rest in the meantime.
So, ... Truth.
Calling it a conflict of opinion changes how we can relate to Hate Speech. "Hate Speech" automatically implies that we're dealing with is 'hate' directed 'at' us - (and if the term 'conflict of opinion' doesn't work because 'trolls' or whatever - its just Bullshit!) - where we see a hostile intent directed at our own.
But I have a stone in my chest ... or throat. Pressing against my heart. I find that I can't give a sympathy pass to Crowder. I mean - looking at his rebuttal to John Oliver. If you break the whole thing down, you'll find that Steven 'gives' the point to John that the whole outrage that John presents is about. And OK, Crowder has some points as well. Or one. Saying that Abortion Clinics are no better. Per se.
Think it around. Think what if there were "Abortion Vans" that started parking outside of CPCs. You can't tell me that wouldn't create the same issue now for the other side; Which OK - would have an argument saying that its disgusting to have these "Death Vans" cruising around. Like we can look at CPC Vans as ... Rape Vans. And we know how much Conservatives love Rape!
[How did Snoke and Kylo come together? I mean - Luke trained Ben - Ben left; Where did he find Snoke? Wouldn't be he first of all his own Master at that point? Sure, where I a fan of those movies I'd find something. Its not that hard. Reylo won't work though; Or whats the Character of Kylo - abandoning Luke to be the puppy Bitch of a rotting (white male) ... something? Ayayay ... shaky ground.]
Which is a mean thing to say. I mean, I don't really assume that Conservatives go out looking for someone to rape. But I really have a strange feeling about this! Perhaps thats Feminists fault.
The thing is that John Oliver says that "this" is crazy; And conservatives don't get it that they're overstepping their boundaries. I can say: OK, lets have an open discussion about Star Wars but if you disagree with me I'm gonna dismiss you and talk over you. No ... I haven't practiced that.
I mean, the thing is that someone somewhere offers something that some others don't want to be offered and so this ... "thing" happens. But yea, Conservatives don't claim to be Liberal and Progressive (a.k.a.: Peace Loving and Forward Thinking) ... so what else could we expect?
It happens to the best of us. As I happen to fume every now and then - there are impulses that would make me wanna ... act ... putting something down that I can't intellectually challenge. So, which in my mind is like a motion to take my hand and put it onto someone elses mouth.
It has to happen. Like John Oliver didn't provide a complete picture - there has to be 'something'.
[Writing: Picture a dude on a parking lot. Next thing, the building in front of him explodes. Now - whats happening? I'm the Author and I have control upon the dude here. I have an idea of his Character and still can decide it against it. But ... lets say I make him look really sacred and run off. So, thats his Character - at that point; And I do nothing to progress him away from that in "this movie". Part 2: The same dude is portrayed like Rambo. A hardened veteran that talks like those Badass "rugged" Veteran Soldier type of dudes with 3-day beard do - and is a total badass for the rest of the movie. What I did there is that I gave the same Character a very different one. The idea of what he was before is still there, but I don't need to let that influence me. Combining the two does/can however still "work" - kindof - if we so assume for instance that the guy is just acting badass. I mean - he just pretends. Its a show. It is however odd. Odd to the point that if there were a 3rd movie - the same guy should yet again play a different Character. Or be the same as in part 1? What do I want from it? Whats the point? I had no reason to drastically ignore what I had established previously - for why would I spend time establishing it? Well - here I established it to get subverted. But that also means that the Character development itself is totally irrelevant. It can't be the point of the entire work because I intentionally take a dump on it. In bad conditions - I'd make that dude be scared just cause I want him to leave the scene; And make him a badass to wrap stuff up. A change that would ordinarily require some ... process - we've possibly seen countless times in a lot of different ways. I mean - if I approach the story from a perspective where I hold myself accountable to what I think of the Characters and what I make them do ... hmmm. I fail to understand what I fail to understand. Could be that non-Enlightened people just lack the levels of insight that make ... certain things 'visible' ... . Or, how quickly can I assemble a believable Character, put him into a situation and have things play out realistically to the outcome I desire? And up to how many additional Characters can I handle in a given time-frame? I mean, I feel like some people have difficulty here. Uh, as for the Character change. If its a part of the plot, its a part of the plot. Part of the story I want to tell. Therefore it would be in there ... fuck subversion ... unless I felt really radical for some reason. IDK.]
But what John Oliver does isn't about a complete picture. He spreads awareness of what CPCs do; And conservatives don't like that. Maybe because in part that it draws a bad picture of them - a bad picture that Conservatives don't believe in because they do what they do for good reasons. And here is a point where Liberals would be on the fence. You can't justify every act by "good reasons". Hitler had "good reasons". Apparently. NSDAP - National Socialistic German Working/Workers Party (National-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei). Just to establish a line of resemblance to Trump. Its not that the worker is thought of - its that there is a 'pro worker' narrative that basically drove the entire political thing leading up into the war and then it was just The Third Reich.
What could happen is that the "Peasants", Liberals and Conservatives alike, get at each others throat and 'the Elite' with the superior resources can hold back and extend their influence during that time. But ... thats ... too far off. Whats the goal? Power, ... so - the False Prophet would show up, the haters start being silent, we have peace and he has the power. Because of Religion he now can do without Governmental restrictions - and thats where my solution is incompatible with their ideas.
And we have to accept the Star Wars sequels - because peace. Says who?
There's a neat German song that, translated, goes like: "I don't have to do anything"/"No I don't".
[Its inevitable for Star Wars fans that disliked the movie to eventually dive into arguments about what they think Star Wars/stuff is/should be]
And eventually it got so bad that all one could do was to stand there and see how everyone around turns into a raging Nazi.
The weird thing is that I feel Conservatives ... much stronger. Weird because in the big picture they would seem to be the ones that have the most to say. The thing is: The US president is Conservative - or is he? Or is Socialism Conservative? The thing is: They have "their people" in charge but ... it is then that they seem to be most scared about Liberals fucking things up.
I mean - what spells: "It doesn't work (that way)" any better?
(Check out TYT. Its not that bad! Not a good Network though?)
[flipping the page]
The thing is I guess that I'm getting stuff twisted. I'm referring to what I'm seeing now as though its regarding the things I've written in the past. Also would I kindof suggest that this is how its gonna continue. Which is ... not what I actually suggest.