Hate speech at Georgetown?

[muwarrior69]

Changing words to accommodate the needs of those who are offended seems like it’d be a bit PC and lord knows Rocket, 69 and others hate that crowd and wouldn’t want to be lumped in with them.

Did you just call me a hater? I don't hate "that crowd", I just disagree with them and their re-definition of marriage. Once you start changing the meaning of words then we lose any basis for understanding. You know you can disagree with people and still love them and be lumped in with them.  Disagreeing does not mean hating, but then again perhaps to some the meaning of disagree means to hate and if that is true then how can we ever come to understand each other.

[Galway Eagle]

Did you just call me a hater? I don't hate "that crowd", I just disagree with them and their re-definition of marriage. Once you start changing the meaning of words then we lose any basis for understanding. You know you can disagree with people and still love them and be lumped in with them.

It was a satirical point that changing the name so it wouldn’t offend you seemed to be PC. Sorry my satirical choice of worded “hate” seemed to offend you. I will use more PC words with my joking in the future.

[Pakuni]

Doesn't say they shouldn't be allowed to marry.  The group belives in the primacy of man-woman marriage to society. 

It seems like man-woman marriage is still important to society.  That's how I am reading it.  Maybe I'm wrong or naive,  but saying they believe in the primacy of marriage defined that way is not saying that no others shoud be able to.

Their essay in the school newspaper says the following:

"Love Saxa’s definition of marriage does not include same-sex couples."

It's perhaps a bit ambiguous, but I think believing they're opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage is a reasonable interpretation. And it's worth noting that when the school newspaper condemned Love Saxa for being opposed to same-sex marriage, the group issued a response that in no way denied that, but rather defended its stance as "synonymous with those of the Catholic Church, and therefore those of Georgetown University."

[Pakuni]

Did you just call me a hater? I don't hate "that crowd", I just disagree with them and their re-definition of marriage. Once you start changing the meaning of words then we lose any basis for understanding. You know you can disagree with people and still love them and be lumped in with them.  Disagreeing does not mean hating, but then again perhaps to some the meaning of disagree means to hate and if that is true then how can we ever come to understand each other.

Oh, please. The meaning of words is always changing and society has not collapsed as a result.

But you're right, disagreeing with someone does not mean you hate them. Wishing to deny them equal rights, on the other hand ...

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Did you just call me a hater? I don't hate "that crowd", I just disagree with them and their re-definition of marriage. Once you start changing the meaning of words then we lose any basis for understanding. You know you can disagree with people and still love them and be lumped in with them.  Disagreeing does not mean hating, but then again perhaps to some the meaning of disagree means to hate and if that is true then how can we ever come to understand each other.

You are not a hater.  But your belief that two men or two women should not be allowed to be married is a hateful belief. All human beings subscribe to at least some hateful beliefs,  it doesn't mean that all human beings should be defined by a few beliefs that they hold.

[mu03eng]

Wishing to deny them equal rights, on the other hand ...

Eh that's a slippery slope. We have to be able to have legitimate policy discussions that impact society as a whole and your statement assumes an infallible truth which either may not be evident at the time or requires society to evolve to recognize.

I'm a big advocate of any couple regardless of orientation being able to be married (government version). I think in hindsight it should have been obvious that this was a natural right as well, as long as the government is recognizing the union of two people for the purposes of promoting a stable society then we must allow all couples to do it. However, we didn't have the hindsight at the time that we do now and has been an evolution of thought for a lot of people. Look at how rapidly societal opinion of gay marriage has changed as well as polling. It's only been in the last 4 years that we got to this point, so I'm willing to let slide that there are some out there that still need to evolve/wrap their brains around it.......labeling folks as a hate group for not having wrapped their brains around something seems counterproductive.

[buckchuckler]

Eh that's a slippery slope. We have to be able to have legitimate policy discussions that impact society as a whole and your statement assumes an infallible truth which either may not be evident at the time or requires society to evolve to recognize.

I'm a big advocate of any couple regardless of orientation being able to be married (government version). I think in hindsight it should have been obvious that this was a natural right as well, as long as the government is recognizing the union of two people for the purposes of promoting a stable society then we must allow all couples to do it. However, we didn't have the hindsight at the time that we do now and has been an evolution of thought for a lot of people. Look at how rapidly societal opinion of gay marriage has changed as well as polling. It's only been in the last 4 years that we got to this point, so I'm willing to let slide that there are some out there that still need to evolve/wrap their brains around it.......labeling folks as a hate group for not having wrapped their brains around something seems counterproductive.

Well stated.  It is far easier to label someone than to try to understand them.  That is the trap the we all too often fall into. 

I can't remember if it was Kierkegaard of Dick van Patten who said, if you label me, you negate me. 

[Pakuni]

Eh that's a slippery slope. We have to be able to have legitimate policy discussions that impact society as a whole and your statement assumes an infallible truth which either may not be evident at the time or requires society to evolve to recognize.

I'm a big advocate of any couple regardless of orientation being able to be married (government version). I think in hindsight it should have been obvious that this was a natural right as well, as long as the government is recognizing the union of two people for the purposes of promoting a stable society then we must allow all couples to do it. However, we didn't have the hindsight at the time that we do now and has been an evolution of thought for a lot of people. Look at how rapidly societal opinion of gay marriage has changed as well as polling. It's only been in the last 4 years that we got to this point, so I'm willing to let slide that there are some out there that still need to evolve/wrap their brains around it.......labeling folks as a hate group for not having wrapped their brains around something seems counterproductive.

I'm assuming a benevolent misreading of my post, which undoubtedly could have been better written.
I'm not labeling anyone a hater because they hold a religious belief that leads them to disagree with same-sex marriage. That's their right  and I don't begrudge it. I'm saying they're being hateful if they believe their religious belief in that regard ought to be imposed universally to deny others equal rights.
Perhaps it's too subtle a difference, but there you have it.

That said, at what point are you willing to label someone?
Can we label those very fine people who marched with tiki torches chanting "Jews will not replace us" as anti-Semites, or ought we try to understand them while their views evolve?
Can we use the "terrorist" label for those who encourage mass murder in the name of warped religious/political beliefs, or will that quash legitimate policy debate about Western influence in the Middle East?
Is it OK to call someone like Richard Spencer a racist, or is that counterproductive because he simply hasn't wrapped his brain around the concept that white supremacy is a disgusting philosophy? (Oh, darn, there I go again with my counterproductive labeling.)

If there's a slippery slope here, I'm not standing on it alone.

[muwarrior69]

You are not a hater.  But your belief that two men or two women should not be allowed to be married is a hateful belief. All human beings subscribe to at least some hateful beliefs,  it doesn't mean that all human beings should be defined by a few beliefs that they hold.

I never said that. Marriage has always been defined, until recently, as the union of one man and one woman. When two men or two women form a union, that is not a marriage by my definition and it can never be one as they are as different as night and day. You can believe you definition and I can believe mine, but for some reason my belief is hateful. I have no problem with courts ruling that the union of two people of the same sex shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of a union between one man and one woman, but please don't call that a marriage because they are not the same or equal.

[Galway Eagle]

I never said that. Marriage has always been defined, until recently, as the union of one man and one woman. When two men or two women form a union, that is not a marriage by my definition and it can never be one as they are as different as night and day. You can believe you definition and I can believe mine, but for some reason my belief is hateful. I have no problem with courts ruling that the union of two people of the same sex shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of a union between one man and one woman, but please don't call that a marriage because they are not the same or equal.

Are we talking in your lifetime? Because that’s the only way this sentence is true or you’re completely ignoring years of polygamy, polyandry, plural marriage and more.

It’s like saying all priests have always been celibate, sure it’s true if you ignore The hundreds of years where it wasn’t and ignore other religions’ priests that are allowed to marry.

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

I never said that. Marriage has always been defined, until recently, as the union of one man and one woman. When two men or two women form a union, that is not a marriage by my definition and it can never be one as they are as different as night and day. You can believe you definition and I can believe mine, but for some reason my belief is hateful. I have no problem with courts ruling that the union of two people of the same sex shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of a union between one man and one woman, but please don't call that a marriage because they are not the same or equal.

So you are hung up over a definition of a word?  What if the government simply called all such legal arrangements, regardless if they are the same sex or not, "unions."  Would that be OK with you?

[mu03eng]

I'm assuming a benevolent misreading of my post, which undoubtedly could have been better written.
I'm not labeling anyone a hater because they hold a religious belief that leads them to disagree with same-sex marriage. That's their right  and I don't begrudge it. I'm saying they're being hateful if they believe their religious belief in that regard ought to be imposed universally to deny others equal rights.
Perhaps it's too subtle a difference, but there you have it.

That said, at what point are you willing to label someone?
Can we label those very fine people who marched with tiki torches chanting "Jews will not replace us" as anti-Semites, or ought we try to understand them while their views evolve?
Can we use the "terrorist" label for those who encourage mass murder in the name of warped religious/political beliefs, or will that quash legitimate policy debate about Western influence in the Middle East?
Is it OK to call someone like Richard Spencer a racist, or is that counterproductive because he simply hasn't wrapped his brain around the concept that white supremacy is a disgusting philosophy? (Oh, darn, there I go again with my counterproductive labeling.)

If there's a slippery slope here, I'm not standing on it alone.

Nope, I read your post exactly as you intended and I stand by my response to it.

Being brutally honest, IMO, if you have to label a group you don't have the moral or intellectual ability to articulate why your position is morally or intellectually superior to that of the group you are labeling. I've learned that hard way that labeling people or groups is never useful so why do it?

Let's take each of your examples in turn:
1. The alt-right folks, I don't have to label them as Nazi's or anti-Semites or whatever. There statements/ideas represent that for them and I can easily argue against those ideas....why do I have to label them?
2. I've been told using the term terrorist inflames the Middle East, so why do I need to use the term? I can condemn those that commit terrorist acts without having to label anyone group.
3. Richard Spencer's words and actions label himself enough, why do I have to label him? We can easily argue against his thoughts and ideas without "calling him names"

Generally speaking I don't believe in -isms or -ists

[mu03eng]

So you are hung up over a definition of a word?  What if the government simply called all such legal arrangements, regardless if they are the same sex or not, "unions."  Would that be OK with you?

This is a fair amount of the problem, marriage means one thing to one group and another to a different group....if we aren't talking about the same thing then we can't agree about said thing.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I never said that. Marriage has always been defined, until recently, as the union of one man and one woman. When two men or two women form a union, that is not a marriage by my definition and it can never be one as they are as different as night and day. You can believe you definition and I can believe mine, but for some reason my belief is hateful. I have no problem with courts ruling that the union of two people of the same sex shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of a union between one man and one woman, but please don't call that a marriage because they are not the same or equal.

The bolded is where it becomes hateful or biased or discriminatory or whatever adjective you want to call it. You view marriages as superior to unions which is fine....until you say that LGBT couples cannot have marriages. You are denying something to someone on the basis of who they are as a person. Whether you mean to or not, you are saying "LGBT individuals are not worthy of marriages. They are only worthy of unions." If you thought both were equally good and it was just a definition thing, sure whatever, that's a whole other less impactful thing. But because you view one as superior to the other, and you want to deny a group the superior one on the basis of their sexual orientation.....that becomes an issue of bias.

My wife and I are married. Our friends Krystal and Maddie are married. Both of our marriages were preformed in the eyes of God by Christian pastors. Their marriage to each other is every bit as special, wonderful, loving, and holy as my wife and I's marriage. My wife and I being different genders doesn't make ours superior.

[Pakuni]

Being brutally honest, IMO, if you have to label a group you don't have the moral or intellectual ability to articulate why your position is morally or intellectually superior to that of the group you are labeling. I've learned that hard way that labeling people or groups is never useful so why do it?

Respectfully, this argument makes no sense and is well beneath your intellectual capacity.
Being able to define a person or an ideology is not a sign of moral or intellectual inferiority. It's a sign that one knows how to use words. You're arguing against the use of words.

According to your apparent position, Elie Wiesel lacks the moral or intellectual ability to express why genocide is bad because, you know, he "labels" those behind the Holocaust evil.
Ronald Reagan lacked the  the moral or intellectual ability to express why the Soviet Union was a corrupt, oppressive and despotic regime because he labeled it that way ... and called it an "Evil Empire."
Oh, and you apparently you lack the moral or intellectual ability to argue against the ideology of the Charlottesville marchers because you label them "alt-right folks."
So much  for your remarkable ability not to use labels.

Generally speaking I don't believe in -isms or -ists

Right. We've already established that words are bad.

[Pakuni]

This is a fair amount of the problem, marriage means one thing to one group and another to a different group....if we aren't talking about the same thing then we can't agree about said thing.

If there were only some way to define what things mean.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Eng, is your argument that it is okay to label actions but not people? For example, you would say 9/11 was a terrorist act but you wouldn't label the people who did it terrorists?

[mu03eng]

Respectfully, this argument makes no sense and is well beneath your intellectual capacity.
Being able to define a person or an ideology is not a sign of moral or intellectual inferiority. It's a sign that one knows how to use words. You're arguing against the use of words.

According to your apparent position, Elie Wiesel lacks the moral or intellectual ability to express why genocide is bad because, you know, he "labels" those behind the Holocaust evil.
Ronald Reagan lacked the  the moral or intellectual ability to express why the Soviet Union was a corrupt, oppressive and despotic regime because he labeled it that way ... and called it an "Evil Empire."

Actually it is and your examples kind of prove my point. If you label a person or a group something, it has the effect of dehumanizing that person or group. It removes the nuance that is that person or group, in effect making it/them an amorphous blob. Both Elie and Reagan labeled for exactly those reasons, to remove any nuance or human characteristics from the group they were trying to aim the angry mob at. However their intention was not to reason with the thing they were labeling so it's not intellectually inferior, what they were doing was with purpose. If you want to do the same thing to Love Saxa, that is your prerogative but it has the impact of stifling debate and we both know you could easily win a debate with them.

Oh, and you apparently you lack the moral or intellectual ability to argue against the ideology of the Charlottesville marchers because you label them "alt-right folks."
So much  for your remarkable ability not to use labels.

Fair, actually it was lazy not a lack of intelligence.

[mu03eng]

Eng, is your argument that it is okay to label actions but not people? For example, you would say 9/11 was a terrorist act but you wouldn't label the people who did it terrorists?

I'm not really saying labeling a person/group is ok or not ok, simply saying that if you choose to label it has the effect of silencing that group. Sometimes that exactly what you want, ala my response to Pakuni's Reagan/Elie Wiesel examples, a lot of times it's counterproductive.

To speak directly to your example, sure I'd label the 9/11 folks as terrorists....mostly because I don't care to nor can I have a debate with them.

And finally, yes, I think it's much more productive to label an action an -ist then a person, mostly because when you start labeling a person that way they are much less inclined to hear alternatives that may turn them away from the -ist action

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I'm not really saying labeling a person/group is ok or not ok, simply saying that if you choose to label it has the effect of silencing that group. Sometimes that exactly what you want, ala my response to Pakuni's Reagan/Elie Wiesel examples, a lot of times it's counterproductive.

To speak directly to your example, sure I'd label the 9/11 folks as terrorists....mostly because I don't care to nor can I have a debate with them.

And finally, yes, I think it's much more productive to label an action an -ist then a person, mostly because when you start labeling a person that way they are much less inclined to hear alternatives that may turn them away from the -ist action

For the most part I agree with this. I can't imagine having a productive conversation with anyone after labeling them a racist, bigot, etc. I am a firm believer that there are very few true -ists in the world but everybody commits -ist actions and has -ist thoughts. When I have conversations like this I try to label the belief/action rather than person.

Fair or not, I think about groups differently. While individuals are complex and shouldn't be defined by their worst attributes....groups have the ability to define themselves in their mission and in their actions. I have trouble not seeing a group like the KKK as a hate group. Its just what they are, in the same way that basketball team is an athletic team, Alpha Beta Chi is a Greek Letter org, and Habitat for Humanity is a service organization.

But I do agree with your point about dehumanization. Groups are made up of individuals and I could see how labeling them a hate group changes them from a collection of individuals to a bunch of nameless monsters. Something I try to get across in a lot of the trainings and workshops that I teach is that those who commit acts of sexual violence are not monsters. They are regular men and women who choose to commit violent acts.

I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea yet, but you've given me something to think about.

[jsglow]

Wow.  Nice tangent, rs.  Anyway, not that it matters, but my opinion is this.  From an equal protection perspective, civil unions must be allowed.  From a religious freedom perspective, you can't force the religions to recognize them or perform the ceremony.    These two notions are in conflict.  For me, when in doubt, I default to compassion.

That's about how I see it too.

And not to digress but I too worry about the term 'hate speech' being thrown around these days.  I'm not sure it's about money although it might be.  I see it as a way to simply silence opposition.

[Jay Bee]

The definition of a hate group is very simple,  IMHO.  If the main tenet/purpose or one of the main tenets of a group is to encourage violence or limit the rights of or decrease the value of an individual based on a specific identity such as race,  gender,  ethnicity,  sexual orientation,  religion,  etc

Too broad (pardon the pun). I think under your definition those, who call for marriage to be recognized by the government and demand the government provide special benefits to those who are married, are a hate group. Why should those who don't marry not be afforded the same respect and rights as those who do marry, gay or otherwise?

If the marriage discussion is truly about equality, then tell the government to stay out of granting special treatment to those who are married.

[warriorchick]

Too broad (pardon the pun). I think under your definition those, who call for marriage to be recognized by the government and demand the government provide special benefits to those who are married, are a hate group. Why should those who don't marry not be afforded the same respect and rights as those who do marry, gay or otherwise?

If the marriage discussion is truly about equality, then tell the government to stay out of granting special treatment to those who are married.

Just because you haven't been able to talk anyone into marrying you, don't try to ruin it for everyone else.   

And I am not sure what you mean by "special treatment".  The marriage penalty has cost Glow and I six figures in additional income taxes.

[Jay Bee]

Just because you haven't been able to talk anyone into marrying you, don't try to ruin it for everyone else.   

And I am not sure what you mean by "special treatment".  The marriage penalty has cost Glow and I six figures in additional income taxes.

For example...

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

#StopTheHate

[forgetful]

I'm confused as to why the notions are in conflict. If we called government marriage a civil union for all couples regardless of gender, sex, or race and a religious-based recognition of the union of two souls in whatever combination a religion wants to recognize as marriage there is no conflict whatsoever. Government marriage is a social construct that grew out of the religious concept but is now a completely different entity. The government grants rights and privileges to couples it recognizes as "married" and so the government can't restrict access to those rights and privileges based on gender, sex, or race. However that has nothing to do with a religious marriage which is ceremonial in nature other than a license (which requires no religion to acquire) and as such the government has no ability to dictate or control what that religion believes/empowers.

We have to decouple these two concepts because it gives a "logic ladder" for those that oppose gay rights to connect the abilities of gay couples to seek rights under a government institution to a persons right to practice their religion without government intervention. I also think we need to change the words we use, in this case we are using marriage in two completely different contexts which creates part of the issue as well.

Side note for those (not you Tower) who make the argument that gays shouldn't marry because that's not what marriage is per religious belief. You are 100% entitled to that belief and to practice your belief, but I am also 100% entitled to my belief that it is a bigoted position and will not stand the test of time.

Well stated.  I concur...but I wouldn't have used "logic ladder" (really just messing with you this time). 

I don't see how someone can disagree with your statement.

I'm also not sure that I would go as far as to call it a bigoted position, I might prefer to refer to it as an outdated belief/position just because of how charged the word bigoted is.