Should saying "all asexuals should be killed" be considered Hate Speech? Apparently Facebook doesn't think so...

[cavalier080854]

?

[carbomb]

Yeah, this is hate speech. So is the reply "kill all straight people". Facebook shouldn't be in the business of removing either.

[The Terrible Travis]

3 hours ago, yourcaptaiin said:

Yeah, this is hate speech. So is the reply "kill all straight people". Facebook shouldn't be in the business of removing either.

The person who said "kill all straight people" literally said "that's how dumb your post sounds" right after. That's not hate speech, that's an argumentative tactic.

[carbomb]

Just now, The Terrible Travis said:

The person who said "kill all straight people" literally said "that's how dumb your post sounds" right after. That's not hate speech, that's an argumentative tactic.

I know. And the person who said "just kill all these people" was clearly joking.

[Nirnroot]

4 hours ago, yourcaptaiin said:

I know. And the person who said "just kill all these people" was clearly joking.

I suppose, but it wasn't totally clear. While I'm not against highly offensive jokes, personally, I think this was going a little far. It could be mistaken for a serious comment if an individual is not used to this kind of humor. 

 

However, was it a public comment, or posted in a way that only people who are into these kinds of highly offensive jokes are meant to see?

For example, was it posted on the page of someone who regularly posts harsher jokes? 

[Philip027]

Quote

I know. And the person who said "just kill all these people" was clearly joking.

The thing with jokes is that they have to actually be funny.

[Nirnroot]

Just now, Philip027 said:

The thing with jokes is that they have to actually be funny.

Humor is extremely subjective. That comment was probably funny to the person who posted it, so that's not really a good guideline to follow. 

[Sally]

Yes, it was hate speech.  No, it wasn't criminal.  It was on a private site (FB), so it's up to FB to control it if they choose.  

[Philip027]

Quote

Humor is extremely subjective. That comment was probably funny to the person who posted it, so that's not really a good guideline to follow. 

I'll spell it out for you, then: if you're the only person in the room laughing, it's probably not humor.  (It's probably just you being a douchebag.)

[Apathetic Echidna]

I would rather have those comments still on public view rather than FB actually following their policy. It makes it easier to know who to avoid, and who it isn't safe to come out to. 

[Busrider]

I was too lazy to read everything in this thread. Facebook's policy is simple; biggest directive: Stay in business & make more money! No matter what they are actually promising; it isn't very affordable for them to pay something like AVEN's mods to filter all the crap posted there. - AI replacements aren't the brightest yet; I am recalling a recent uproar when Nick Ut's press photo of the year '72 got quoted and removed on Facebook. - I think I had it in a schoolbook, when I was still 13 or younger. 

 

IMHO the only solution against hate speech and similar online are laws criminalizing it and law enforcement going after it. 

IDK where the threshold to trigger what kind of punishment should be, but something like a friendly parking ticket should get occasionally collected.

[Luftschlosseule]

12 hours ago, cavalier080854 said:

 It is a relative new phenomenon that hate speech is an act of violence, no it is not.

Dude, no. Just no. It's a new phenomenon that you won't get killed if the authorities don't like what you say, and even that's not true for some parts of this planet.

Free speech garantues that, by the way. It means that you won't get prosecuted because you openly said you like the wrong party. It only applies to the relationship between government and civilist and really has nothing to do in this kind of conversation we're having.

 

Are you aware that you sound like a raving teenager by just throwing words in the air without knowing what they mean?

[andreas1033]

I would think, statistically an asexual, is less likely then a sexual to harm others. Plus with what this thread is about, sums up alot, of the ignorance of many people.

Why would anyone need or want to kill asexuals for being not interested in sex?

For me, although i do not like to generalise, i think sexuals, and i mean aggressive sexuals, like the predator types, are the most dangerous forms of humans, in general.

Its like a video i saw of george carlen once, where he talks about how they have sayings in society that do not make sense. He pointed out, that why does society claim, you always have to watch the quiet ones. He pointed out quite correctly its the aggressive types, you should be watching, for doing wrong doings.

I think op, it comes down to yet another aggressive sexual, whom thinks everyone should be like them.

The bit that gets me about sexuals, and there problems with asexuals, is why does it matter, if there is asexuals in the world. Surely there is enough sexuals in this world and the world is so over populated, why do sexuals care if a person, has no sex drive, or does not pant for others?

I know if i was gov, i would rather be watching out for aggressive sexuals, over passive asexuals, in terms of whom will do something wrong.

So for me, i do not know if it should be hate speech. I am sure asexuals have always had problems in the sexual world of adults, and i doubt its ever going to change.

[Nirnroot]

4 hours ago, Busrider said:

I was too lazy to read everything in this thread. Facebook's policy is simple; biggest directive: Stay in business & make more money! No matter what they are actually promising; it isn't very affordable for them to pay something like AVEN's mods to filter all the crap posted there. - AI replacements aren't the brightest yet; I am recalling a recent uproar when Nick Ut's press photo of the year '72 got quoted and removed on Facebook. - I think I had it in a schoolbook, when I was still 13 or younger. 

 

IMHO the only solution against hate speech and similar online are laws criminalizing it and law enforcement going after it. 

IDK where the threshold to trigger what kind of punishment should be, but something like a friendly parking ticket should get occasionally collected.

I definitely think that we should never, ever criminalize hate speech. Because hate speech is not a threat, it's just a bigoted opinion. And while I'm no fan of bigots, people should have the right to be one.

[Busrider]

@Lawn McGee: I somewhat envy you for your patience.

23 minutes ago, Lawn McGee said:

hate speech is not a threat, it's just a bigoted opinion. And while I'm no fan of bigots, people should have the right to be one.

I wouldn't fancy being part of law enforcement condemned to protect a bigot's freedom to utter hate speech.

Such a freedom works only well in a field where others have the freedom to either beat up the hate speaker right on the spot or arrange Duells. 

Germany banned a few forms of hate speech already and seems going further. I think living under such legislation feels good; at least no hassle joining a civil war in the streets...

[Nirnroot]

52 minutes ago, Busrider said:

@Lawn McGee: I somewhat envy you for your patience.

I wouldn't fancy being part of law enforcement condemned to protect a bigot's freedom to utter hate speech.

Such a freedom works only well in a field where others have the freedom to either beat up the hate speaker right on the spot or arrange Duells. 

Germany banned a few forms of hate speech already and seems going further. I think living under such legislation feels good; at least no hassle joining a civil war in the streets...

But words are just words, they're harmless. If you start banning statements that offend a few people, who knows how far speech policing will go? More and more statements will be banned. 

People will be afraid to speak the truth, and what they really think. 

Besides, if you don't let the opposing side make their argument, you never have anything going against you, you only hear one side, how can you be sure that you are right? You need to hear an opposing view's arguments so that you can tell them why they're wrong. 

There is a reason freedom of speech is important. 

 

But, like I said, a threat is a different story. Stating you hate a group of people is absolutely harmless, but threatening them is different. 

 

Now, please don't be one of those people who wishes violence upon people with differing views. Being able to "beat them on the spot" because they have a different opinion is going a little far. 

[Busrider]

56 minutes ago, Lawn McGee said:

People will be afraid to speak the truth, and what they really think. 

"The world would be better without Nazis" is a legitimate and legal statement, that I happen to really think. 

 

1 hour ago, Lawn McGee said:

You need to hear an opposing view's arguments so that you can tell them why they're wrong.

I disagree. Certain POVs & statements should be beyond discussion. 

 

1 hour ago, Lawn McGee said:

Being able to "beat them on the spot" because they have a different opinion is going a little far. 

I totally agree when Ford vs. Chrysler or Canon vs. Nikon get discussed. But I do admit that I am really sad they didn't erect a statue of Danuta Danielsson....

[Lost247365]

I am on my phone so I can't get pics or format this as easily, but Facebook has updated their review of Corey Cook and removed his post.

 

I also got a PM from some of you saying you have reported the two.  Maybe that is the reason that post got taken down.

 

That said, thank all of you for participating in this thread!

[Lost247365]

On 9/9/2017 at 11:16 PM, sg06 said:

Just a trigger warning for anyone else who might be prone to depression or thinks of clicking on the Facebook links and reading the comments on there: those aren't the only two cruel comments; there are many that are sad or upsetting to read, with several criticizing the picture of asexuals walking with the asexual signs during a Pride parade (because they feel as though asexuals are "shoving" their asexuality onto others by parading with signs).

I am sorry, I should have mentioned that in a clearer manner.

[LeChat]

46 minutes ago, Lost247365 said:

I am sorry, I should have mentioned that in a clearer manner.

That's fine; I understand. I was just warning others myself, thinking of the teens and young adults who visit this forum, who might come across that and feel sad or upset (because when I was depressed at that age, coming across things like that would've probably made me feel even more suicidal), not criticizing you for not mentioning it.

[Nirnroot]

9 hours ago, Busrider said:

"The world would be better without Nazis" is a legitimate and legal statement, that I happen to really think. 

 

I disagree. Certain POVs & statements should be beyond discussion. 

 

I totally agree when Ford vs. Chrysler or Canon vs. Nikon get discussed. But I do admit that I am really sad they didn't erect a statue of Danuta Danielsson....

I just think we shouldn't be telling people what opinions they can or can't hold. Yeah, Nazi's are dumb, but just believing as a Nazi does hurts no one. If they actually go out killing Jews or telling others to hurt Jews that's completely different. But clearly, you do not value freedom of speech like I do. I've tried to explain its importance, but we simply have different values. 

 

EDIT:

I'd like to add a quote myself, a quote that explains how I've always felt.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

[Philip027]

Quote

I just think we shouldn't be telling people what opinions they can or can't hold.

There's a fine difference between holding a bad opinion and sharing it with the rest of the class.

[Nirnroot]

35 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

There's a fine difference between holding a bad opinion and sharing it with the rest of the class.

So what? You expect people to never be allowed to talk about their unpopular opinion? 

I disagree. There is a time and a place where it is appropriate to share your opinion, even if it's stupid and society doesn't agree with you. Such as on personal property, amungst friends. Or on your own, personal social media page(on site that would allow you to do so). In that time and place, you shouldn't have to worry about legal action being taken against you for being a bigot, because you are not hurting anyone. 

That's all I'm saying. You should be allowed to share it(where appropriate) with out getting in legal trouble. Freedom of speech.

[Philip027]

Quote

So what? You expect people to never be allowed to talk about their unpopular opinion? 

If it's something to the extent of "just kill these people" (that you think apparently passes off as a joke; I don't see any of us laughing, do you?) then yeah, I think they shouldn't be allowed to talk about it.  Plenty of things in life are better kept to yourself.

 

But I guess the golden rule was never taught to you as a kid.

[Nirnroot]

32 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

If it's something to the extent of "just kill these people" (that you think apparently passes off as a joke; I don't see any of us laughing, do you?) then yeah, I think they shouldn't be allowed to talk about it.  Plenty of things in life are better kept to yourself.

You haven't been paying attention. 

I never said that I was arguing for the right to say that. In fact, I said it was "almost a threat". Threats are something different. 

The reason I am arguing is because that other guy said that hate speech should be criminalized. All hate speech is is people claiming they think badly of groups of people. That doesn't mean they are threatening. 

I am arguing that I don't support the criminalization of 'hate speech'. 

Threats are another story. 

36 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

But I guess the golden rule was never taught to you as a kid.

That's a little insulting considering you don't seem to understand where I'm coming from....

[Philip027]

Quote

The reason I am arguing is because that other guy said that hate speech should be criminalized. All hate speech is is people claiming they think badly of groups of people. That doesn't mean they are threatening. 

Stuff doesn't have to be *threatening* in order to be offensive, completely unwarranted, and uncalled for.

 

Quote

I never said that I was arguing for the right to say that. In fact, I said it was "almost a threat". Threats are something different. 

You tried to defend such a comment by saying that humor is "subjective"

 

But the thing is, there is no valid defense for such a comment, and it's not a joke because nobody else thinks it's funny.  You're defending someone's "right" to be a total knobgobbler toward other people undeserving of it.  As far as I'm concerned, that makes you just as bad as he is.

 

Quote

That's a little insulting considering you don't seem to understand where I'm coming from....

I understand perfectly, thanks.

 

I "understand" that I certainly wouldn't feel safe around someone like you because you apparently think "free speech" equates to freedom to be as much of a verbal jackass as you feel like, so long as you aren't actually physically hurting anyone.

 

As an aside, your recent status updates remarking upon a distancing between you and your friends make a whole lot more sense to me after seeing your replies in this thread.

[Nirnroot]

14 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Stuff doesn't have to be *threatening* in order to be offensive, completely unwarranted, and uncalled for.

 

You tried to defend such a comment by saying that humor is "subjective"

 

But the thing is, there is no valid defense for such a comment, and it's not a joke because nobody else thinks it's funny.  You're defending someone's "right" to be a total knobgobbler toward other people undeserving of it.  As far as I'm concerned, that makes you just as bad as he is.

 

I understand perfectly, thanks.

 

I "understand" that I certainly wouldn't feel safe around someone like you because you apparently think "free speech" equates to freedom to be as much of a verbal jackass as you feel like, so long as you aren't actually physically hurting anyone.

 

As an aside, your recent status updates remarking upon a distancing between you and your friends make a whole lot more sense to me after seeing your replies in this thread.

First of all, no, I wasn't defending that comment, I was just disagreeing with you when you said that it's only a joke if people laugh. That's just something I disagree with. I am not defending the comment.

Second, we are really getting off topic here. Here is not the place to argue about what you or I is trying to say. So, I'm done arguing about this.

To clarify though, I am all for freedom of speech, am against making hate speech illegal, and do not think the comment OP was talking about was appropriate.

I will say no more about this here.

[Philip027]

Quote

I was just disagreeing with you when you said that it's only a joke if people laugh.

Let me know if you think comedians keep their jobs when nobody finds their "jokes" funny.

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

I've always regarded Facebook as a pile of poo. It encourages nonsense, enlightens very little and in the end is just a 'he said...she said' thing.To be frank, IMHO, there's got to be something wrong with someone who goes on these pages solely to insult others and start arguments for the sake of it. I never understood social media, except that I understand how unhappy those sites make people. Thank goodness we have AVEN. 

[Asexual._.Blanket]

Of course it's hate speech. Like you kind of stated, if the article was "10 Fascinating Facts Most People Don't Know About Judaism", or some other commonly sensitive topic and people commented that, people would go insane- and this shouldn't count as any different. I'm all for free speech, but saying that they should be killed is crossing a line. They can say they disagree with it or invalidate it or whatever the heck they want- but under no circumstance is saying someone or a group of people shouldn't live, no matter the reason, okay.