Hate

[Enoch07]

Is it ok to discuss the mass murder of people based on ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, sexual preference, age, size, weight or disability? Even if it's just a theoretical conversation? Seems to me hate is hate and having a theoretical conversation about killing anyone for the reasons listed above is just a thinly veiled attempt at masking hate. Do you agree or disagree? Explain why.

 

[Altfish]

It is ok to talk about it, of course it is.
We must discuss mass killings of the past to ensure that they don't happen again.
You can't make it illegal to talk about (say) the holocaust.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think it depends on the discussion and what we mean by 'okay.'

 

[Twilight Hue]

Is it ok to discuss the mass murder of people based on ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, sexual preference, age, size, weight or disability? Even if it's just a theoretical conversation? Seems to me hate is hate and having a theoretical conversation about killing anyone for the reasons listed above is just a thinly veiled attempt at masking hate. Do you agree or disagree? Explain why.

I think avoiding things like not talking about such subjects would be detrimental.

The main gist would be to make people aware and to remind people of the importance of being realistic as to why these things happen and what can be done and had been done to curtail such realities as best as possible.

Affecting people's ability for free speech to talk about and discuss such things openly can have implications that go far beyond just protecting people's sensitivities that cloister them from the truth.

 

[Enoch07]

It is ok to talk about it, of course it is.
We must discuss mass killings of the past to ensure that they don't happen again.
You can't make it illegal to talk about (say) the holocaust.

It is ok to talk about past events. This helps us to ensure it does not happen again (hopefully).

I am talking about discussing an event which theoretical might happen in the (near) future.

I think it depends on the discussion and what we mean by 'okay.'

Okay means is it socially acceptable to discuss possibly killing people based criteria listed in my post.

 

[Enoch07]

Affecting people's ability for free speech to talk about and discuss such things openly can have implications that go far beyond just protecting people's sensitivities that cloister them from the truth.

So Nazis have the right to talk about preparing to kill non-whites, so long as it's theoretical?

It's ok to talk about killing all LGBT so long as it's theoretical?

Is this what you are saying?

 

[Jumi]

It gets interesting when you are part of the hated group. Can mess with your mind and dehumanize the haters group for you. Then the ball starts rolling...

 

[Enoch07]

It gets interesting when you are part of the hated group. Can mess with your mind and dehumanize the haters group for you. Then the ball starts rolling...

What do you do when everyone is apart of that group?

 

[Nous]

Is it ok to discuss the mass murder of people based on ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, sexual preference, age, size, weight or disability? Even if it's just a theoretical conversation? Seems to me hate is hate and having a theoretical conversation about killing anyone for the reasons listed above is just a thinly veiled attempt at masking hate. Do you agree or disagree? Explain why.

This seems to be a very convoluted question, especially on the North American politics board.

Yes, it is certainly morally and socially acceptable and responsible to discuss the mass murder of Jews at the Pittsburgh synagogue that happened a few weeks ago, and the various groups targeted by Nazis in the WWII holocaust, or the intended extermination of Native Americans by Europeans in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

Where would anyone get the idea that it isn't "okay" to discuss these events?

 

[Enoch07]

This seems to be a very convoluted question, especially on the North American politics board.

Yes, it is certainly morally and socially acceptable and responsible to discuss the mass murder of Jews at the Pittsburgh synagogue that happened a few weeks ago, and the various groups targeted by Nazis in the WWII holocaust, or the intended extermination of Native Americans by Europeans in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

Where would anyone get the idea that it isn't "okay" to discuss these events?

Again we are not talking about past events.

We are talking about people theoretically discussing mass killing of other people because they of their ethnicity, gender, religion, etc.

 

[Nous]

Again we are not talking about past events.

We are talking about people theoretically discussing mass killing of other people because they of their ethnicity, gender, religion, etc.

A group of people who wish to discuss their own desire or plans to commit mass murder of any group should restrict that discussion to their therapist's office or with the nearest law enforcement officer. It definitely isn't legally protected to engage in a discussion conspiring to commit such mass murder.

 

[YmirGF]

Is it ok to discuss the mass murder of people based on ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, sexual preference, age, size, weight or disability? Even if it's just a theoretical conversation? Seems to me hate is hate and having a theoretical conversation about killing anyone for the reasons listed above is just a thinly veiled attempt at masking hate. Do you agree or disagree? Explain why.

A bit click-baitey but I see what you are thinking. Your poll question is simply not the same thing as outlined in your OP. If you are talking about taking out any identifiable target group that is a no go for what should be incredibly obvious reasons besides being against the law in several countries worldwide.

In my view, the ONLY way to approach such a topic is a in general global terms that would effect all, indiscriminately, such as with a large natural disaster.

 

[columbus]

Is it ok to discuss the mass murder of people based on ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, sexual preference, age, size, weight or disability? Even if it's just a theoretical conversation? Seems to me hate is hate and having a theoretical conversation about killing anyone for the reasons listed above is just a thinly veiled attempt at masking hate. Do you agree or disagree? Explain why.

As a member of a group regularly targeted, I definitely do NOT want such conversations squelched and driven underground.
It prevents decent folk from chiming in with opposition. And it gives the perps a sense of persecution, a martyr complex, with the resultant feelings of self-righteousness.

There are very important reasons to carefully protect the right to free speech, including odious speech. That's the main reason I dislike the PC BS.
Tom

 

[tytlyf]

If someone has a mental disorder like PTSD, then it's questionable. I voted yes, but depending on the phrasing you could walk into racist territory.
Is it ok for me to have a conservative about "RW'rs committing the most mass murders?" Or "old, white men committing the most mass murders?"
I wouldn't call that racist as I'm a white person, every race has it's problem people. I don't think it's wrong to point it out.

 

[youknowme]

Kind of seems like this should be posted in the feedback section and more of question for the mods than the general users.

Anyways keep the rules in mind.

6. Illegal Activities
Advocating or discussing personal engagement in illegal activities or criminal organizations (such as hate groups or terrorist groups) is prohibited in all areas of RF. Illegal activities are defined based on United States law, and include but are not limited to: drug use, theft, piracy, vandalism, and all violent crimes. Voicing opposition to illegal activities and criminal organizations, or debating changes to current criminal law, may be acceptable at the discretion of the RF staff.

RF Rules

 

[Enoch07]

If someone has a mental disorder like PTSD, then it's questionable. I voted yes, but depending on the phrasing you could walk into racist territory.
Is it ok for me to have a conservative about "RW'rs committing the most mass murders?" Or "old, white men committing the most mass murders?"
I wouldn't call that racist as I'm a white person, every race has it's problem people. I don't think it's wrong to point it out.

You are correct in you thinking.

So long as you are not talking about making theoretical plans to do it yourself.

 

[Enoch07]

Kind of seems like this should be posted in the feedback section and more of question for the mods than the general users.

Anyways keep the rules in mind.



RF Rules

It's not a question about what can be discussed here on RF specifically. As I know any such discussion is not allowed here.

I'm speaking of should we tolerate it in general?

 

[Enoch07]

As a member of a group regularly targeted, I definitely do NOT want such conversations squelched and driven underground.
It prevents decent folk from chiming in with opposition. And it gives the perps a sense of persecution, a martyr complex, with the resultant feelings of self-righteousness.

There are very important reasons to carefully protect the right to free speech, including odious speech. That's the main reason I dislike the PC BS.
Tom

I agree on that basis.

 

[columbus]

I agree on that basis.

I generally don't discuss cultures I am not sufficiently familiar with.
Like Europe.

But I strongly suspect that the rise in hate groups and misguided "populism" there has a lot to do with weakness in free speech.
Tom

 

[Enoch07]

So I'll fill people in.

I'm on Twitter minding my own business scrolling through.


I see a post where a group of women are tweeting about culling the male population, and saving a few stragglers to enslave for reproductive purposed only. All newborn males to be aborted/killed on birth. All in theory.

Now I know this has been around for awhile. And I would never advocate that they should not be allowed free speech. But I don't want to have it in my face everyday from someone who says they are a friend.

So I messaged her to tell her I was removing her because I don't want to be affiliated with hatred like that on a daily basis. She of course got upset and had a temper tantrum. I calmy explained to her that I would not follow anyone else that advocated (even in theory) the death/harm of any minority, gender, etc, so why would start allowing it with her. Which only fueled her hatred even more.

So thats what this about.

I feel like while everyone has the right to free speech.

I have the right to not expose myself to that speech if I chose. Am I right?