deceit your entire argument hinges on the fact that you believe that hate speech can just simply be ignored, the old adage of "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" but that idea is just not true. There have been many studies that have shown that language has a direct impact on different neurotransmitters released in the brain, and even more research on hate speech and its impacts on society. Most importantly, hate speech is a predictor of violence. I would recommend checking out
this study or
this paper if you wish to actually get a full on lengthy answer on why hate speech is not an OK phenomenon and moreover why it is just dangerous as pre-conceived notions of harm. The short answer is that hate speech, or negative speech in general but mostly hate speech for its exaggerated effect, force neurotransmitters to be released in the brain, often from the amygdala, and that this ends up clouding rational thought from the frontal lobe. Why is this important? The stress induced from this "fear intoxicated" state is a direct link to increasing depression, clinical anxiety, self-harm, and even suicide. It's very easy to say "oh just don't listen to it" but your brain still gets that information relayed. It still hears someone calling you the n word, and from then on that hate speech giving person is a threat. The first step to genocide is to dehumanize the populace you are attempting to eradicate, so people are "ok" with the very contrarian idea of murder. Hate speech not only emboldens people to speak the negative thoughts its also a signal to let those in the "other" group know that they are not safe. This is why hate speech is being pushed to be banned, not because of "liberal feels" but because it legitimately has a negative impact on the human frame of mind, and is extremely dangerous to the mental state of others.
When people say "Free Speech" they are encompassing the abstract idea of society as a whole to have the ability to express themselves how they wished. It is a
societal not
individual trait. You do not have the individual ability to shout "Fire" in a movie theater, society has deemed that not OK because you incite panic. How then, can you argue that "hate speech" itself, knowing that it incites panic in the "other" that the speech is directed towards, is perfectly fine and should be voiced? Society does not have to let every single idea surface and be given a platform, in fact quite the opposite. It is in society's best interest to quell certain concepts from the sphere of thought, because the masses are easily moved and language is easily abused. I would assume you are for the advancement of society for the welfare of people, and so cannot see how you could see any societal net gain from allowing racists, bigots, and other like-minded individuals to be given platforms to voice their ideas that are inherently dangerous to their fellow humans. Unless, you don't believe that depression, anxiety, stress, and suicide are real issues? As you said, "the world is tough," but why should it be made any tougher than it already is? Why are you so pro-hate speech?
Now we're getting somewhere at least.
I want to clarify this, I am not for hate speech, I'm for free speech as a whole and the ability to speak your mind as you please. In that, hate speech is free speech, that does not mean I condone, on a personal note, someone saying one or any other examples I've previously given. You can still be a pretty garbage human being in doing so, so it doesn't change much just because it may be legal. In the US that is the law as it stands, and that was a truth the founder fathers found to be self-evident, aka, the US was practically built on that amendment in the Bill of Rights. Now, a couple things I think you're not getting. I already agreed shouting fire in a crowded theater is something justifiable, and anything that insights violence. It is societal, and it is law. If you have issues with depression, clinical anxiety, self-harm, and suicide, that's why therapy is a thing. Not that it's fun, but it would pretty damn well help. I want to make this clear as well, I don't like hateful words either, nobody does, but where the hell would we go if we took everything said to us personally.
On that note, I do want to ask you this though. With all of these increased rates of clinically diagnosed mental issues having to do with emotion (exempting bipolar disorder, since that's more solely biological), why wasn't that the case in the 1950s, or even before that (and do not say because they weren't widely researched yet, because there is plenty of evidence that compensates for that)? The world was just as tough, if not even tougher I'd argue. Now don't get me wrong here, I'm with
OLD GREGG (im back baby) that their voices should not be invalidated, and they should have upmost treatment, care, and love, as with anyone that's sick. However, parents actually taught their kids the realities of the world, and that the world was not going to give their kids everything on a silver plater (contrary to how many parents have shifted today). That's why we have winners and we have losers in games, if everyone wins, what would we learn? It's small and minute examples like that that go a long way in personal development and your perception of the world. It is impossible to create a utopia, I hate to break it to you, as great as that would be. That's why kids (and people in general) need to be taught with love, and with thick skin, sometimes as tough love in general.
So, to put my point plainly and simply, to reuse your own words, yes, "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me," still holds up even today. The world hasn't changed to that degree. It's called maturing, and letting things go in one ear and out the other. Majority of the time (exceptions obviously), it's not all that hard.
On a sidenote, you've thus far taken a lot of my arguments out of context and construing them into something they're not [basically saying, "so you're saying that...(insert extreme and badly implied narrative here)]. If you don't fully get something I'm saying, just ask. I would kindly appreciate you quit doing that, because you're not getting anywhere. Additionally, perhaps watch the lecture I actually posted instead of blindly saying Dinesh D'Souza is a racist, it's embarrassing mate.
