Poll: 51% of Democrats support criminalizing hate speech

posted at 8:41 pm on October 2, 2014 by Allahpundit

Note: Hate speech, not hate crimes. YouGov asked people about hate crimes for its poll too and found bipartisan support for the federal law that provides steeper penalties for crimes motivated by hatred of the victim’s race, religion, gender, or national origin. Sixty-four percent of Dems gave thumbs-up to that versus 54 percent of Republicans. A plurality of Republicans also support expanding that law to target hate crimes committed against gays: 44 percent say yes versus 30 percent who say no.

Hate-crimes laws matter in the sentencing phase. If you’re guilty of the underlying offense, then you can be punished more severely depending upon what your motive was. A hate-speech law is different in that it treats hate as the offense itself. All you have to do is verbalize your thoughtcrime against a protected group and you’re facing prison. Our intellectual superiors in Europe cherish their hate-speech laws but the First Amendment makes them anathema in the U.S.

For now.

hatespeech1

Independents and Republicans are heavily opposed (although, alarmingly, not quite to a majority degree among GOPers) but Democrats and liberals — proud guardians of the free-speech movement in the 1960s — are ready to censor. The best spin I can put on this for lefties is that YouGov’s question asked if they’d support a law that criminalizes comments that “advocate genocide or hatred” against a particular group. Could be that some people who said yes focused on the first part of that, genocide, rather than the second and figured that “advocating genocide” is close enough to making a credible violent threat against a person that it can and should be made illegal too. It can’t (unless you’re doing your advocating in front of a mob that’s whipped up and ready to attack someone), but a question asking exclusively about “hatred” would have been better. An interesting footnote to all this: Given America’s history of racism against blacks, you would think they might support hate-speech laws more than any other group. They do support those laws more than whites (44/34 in favor among blacks versus 32/43 opposition among whites) but not as much as Latinos do. Latinos favor them 49/20, a wider gap in support than you find even among self-identified liberals. On the other hand, the left-leaning 18-34 group doesn’t support hate-speech laws much more than any other age demographic does. They break 38/37. Seniors breaks 35/39.

Lest you think Republicans and independents stand against criminalizing all forms of offensive expression, though, here are the numbers when YouGov asked whether we should make it a crime to desecrate venerated objects or places use for religious worship:

desecration

Support across the board. This is another question that could have benefited from better wording, though: “Desecration” could mean anything from aggressive vandalism, like smashing a religious statue or graffiting a church’s walls, to mockery that doesn’t involve property crimes. (I.e. a difference similar to the difference between hate crimes and hate speech.) The question was inspired by the case in Pennsylvania where a 14-year-old went up to a statue of Jesus and — well, see for yourself. Jonathan Turley has the photo. When YouGov asked whether that kid should spend up to two years in jail for that specific act of desecration, respondents split 36/47 against. Among Republicans, it was 40/46. Among Democrats, it was … 44/38. That’s appalling but it makes sense given their response to the hate-speech question. If you want to criminalize offensive expression, as many liberals seem inclined to do, why not hit the 14-year-old with prison time for insulting Jesus? Coming soon, presumably: Blasphemy laws.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Schadmore

listens2glenn on October 3, 2014 at 11:52 AM

Poll: 51% of Democrats support criminalizing hate speech

I’m OK with that. Most Democrats would be going to jail!

cajunpatriot on October 3, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Just wondering. Is there any part of the Constitution of the United States of America that the Democrats like?

pwb on October 3, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Just wondering. Is there any part of the Constitution of the United States of America that the Democrats like?

pwb on October 3, 2014 at 12:11 PM

.
Yes … from last night.

listens2glenn on October 3, 2014 at 12:17 PM

And this.

listens2glenn on October 3, 2014 at 12:19 PM

Just wondering. Is there any part of the Constitution of the United States of America that the Democrats like?

pwb on October 3, 2014 at 12:11 PM

On the parts that can be used to block Republican action, and only when it can be used for that purpose.

Star Bird on October 3, 2014 at 12:22 PM

Which is why we need to start calling them fiberals. Their whole claim to “liberalism” is a fib–these days.

Axeman on October 3, 2014 at 11:14 AM

If you really want to get under their skin, refer to them as the Collective.

Star Bird on October 3, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Idiots. Utter and complete idiots. We deserve what we get.

libfreeordie on October 2, 2014 at 9:48 AM

Schadenfreude on October 3, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Just wondering. Is there any part of the Constitution of the United States of America that the Democrats like?

pwb on October 3, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Yes, the part where they can smell the emanations of penumbra of new rights.

Dexter_Alarius on October 3, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Which is why we need to start calling them fiberals. Their whole claim to “liberalism” is a fib–these days.

Axeman on October 3, 2014 at 11:14 AM

.
If you really want to get under their skin, refer to them as the Collective.

Star Bird on October 3, 2014 at 12:27 PM

.
But liberal-socialists have always viewed all of us as “the collective.”
Kraken means it in a different way, but would the liberal(s) you’re arguing with ‘get it’, when we use that term on them?

listens2glenn on October 3, 2014 at 12:39 PM

But liberal-socialists have always viewed all of us as “the collective.”
Kraken means it in a different way, but would the liberal(s) you’re arguing with ‘get it’, when we use that term on them?

listens2glenn on October 3, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Not so. I should know, for I am Kraken.

For the liberal socialist there are two kinds of people. People within the Collective, and those outside of the Collective that need to be assimilated.

This is why they come up with contingency pans for those who cannot be assimilated.

They may not get it at first, which is why we get to chuckle at them for not getting the fact that their own internal sub-culture is being mocked.

But they do get it eventually. That’s when the sparks fly and the hilarity begins.

Trust me. I’ve been highly entertained by it, and you can be too.

Star Bird on October 3, 2014 at 12:55 PM

There is definitely a growing fascist faction in the democrat party.

MCGIRV on October 3, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Yep liberals hate our freedoms..soon they will want blasphemy laws…they should just get it over with and move over to Pakistan with their barbaric blasphemy laws

sadsushi on October 3, 2014 at 1:04 PM

If this happens, a lot of leftists are going to federal pound-you-in-the-azz prison.

Wait, most of them would probably like that.

Meople on October 3, 2014 at 1:14 PM

So 51% of Democrats are anti-American, Constitution hating, totalitarian assholes. That’s sounds about right.

Whitey Ford on October 3, 2014 at 1:35 PM

So 51% of Dems are anti-American totalitarian azzholes.

Whitey Ford on October 3, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Free speech!

Unless it might scare you… can’t have that.

Freaking Bluenosers want to shove their morality down everyone’s throats and shut you up so you can’t complain about it.

ajacksonian on October 3, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Just wondering. Is there any part of the Constitution of the United States of America that the Democrats like?

pwb on October 3, 2014 at 12:11 PM

The part where the “living, breathing” (fickle?) Constitution [and what liberal federal judges say it says] is the “supreme law of the land”.

They like that kind of elitist supremacy.

Axeman on October 3, 2014 at 1:43 PM

So Bill Maher can just turn himself in now and pick out a cell.

IndieDogg on October 3, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Freaking Bluenosers want to shove their lack/absence of morality down everyone’s throats and shut you up so you can’t complain about it.

ajacksonian on October 3, 2014 at 1:40 PM

.
A little more to the point.

listens2glenn on October 3, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Bipartisan idiocy.

There’s no such thing as a “hate crime”, just crime. Further, this “hate crime” idiocy stands in direct opposition to the idea that all are equal under the law. If one commits a crime against another than it’s just a crime and doesn’t merit different treatment depending on the race, ethnicity, or any other bean counting idiocy.

A note for the tyrants among us, people are allowed to hate other people or other groups. That’s part of their freedom. They don’t even have to have any reasons.

As to this totally insane “hate speech” stuff … there’s really nothing to say about something so insane. Those who support restrictions on speech they don’t like are dangerous individuals who need to be hit with the sanctions they are looking to impose on others.

*shakes head in total disgust*

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on October 2, 2014 at 8:56 PM

Normally I find some of your comments over the top, but this I agree with 100%.

Crime is crime. All speech is free speech when it comes to the government. Now if something says something that others don’t agree with you must face those consequences. Even if they commit a crime against you for it, I still wouldn’t count it as hate crime or hate speech.

To paraphrase the mayor in Ghostbusters, “It is every American’s God given right to treat others like dirt.”

ConDem on October 3, 2014 at 1:51 PM

So Bill Maher can just turn himself in now and pick out a cell.

IndieDogg on October 3, 2014 at 1:45 PM

.
Only because he just recently called Islam more dangerous than Christianity.

listens2glenn on October 3, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Only 49% of Republicans are against hate speech laws. This is why I don’t call myself a Republican anymore. This is why the Republican leadership is afraid to close down our borders to travelers from West Africa. This* is why Republicans are afraid to close down our borders to Latin American immigration and invasion. This is why the country is doomed.

___________________________
* Along with old-fashions bribery from business interests.

Nomennovum on October 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM

I agree, well stated.

oryguncon on October 3, 2014 at 1:55 PM

they also consider any argument against expanding entitlements hate speech.

So how long before we start locking up political dissidents? 20 years?

jhffmn on October 3, 2014 at 2:19 PM

I too favor criminalizing hate speech:
Here’s a few of mine:
Calling someone a racist
Calling someone a homophobe
Calling someone a bible thumper
Calling someone a climate denier….you get the idea
Booing God a convention

Their speech is full of hate.

Don L on October 3, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Will this include criminalizing my hatred of Hate Speech legislation?

verbaluce on October 3, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Just wondering. Is there any part of the Constitution of the United States of America that the Democrats like?

pwb on October 3, 2014 at 12:11 PM

On the parts that can be used to block Republican action, and only when it can be used for that purpose.

Star Bird on October 3, 2014 at 12:22 PM

Leftist morality is like Swiss cheese.
When it is not wanted they point to the holes
When they want something they ignore the holes and point to the nutrition…as so it is with their version of truth and goodness.

Don L on October 3, 2014 at 3:04 PM

So how long before we start locking up political dissidents? 20 years?

jhffmn on October 3, 2014 at 2:19 PM

En masse? That’s probably about right, but they’re already playing around with it at the edges, locking up dissidents for crimes for which non-dissidents would get a slap on the wrist, if that.

That is where the slippery slope between hate crimes and hate speech comes in. Accused of committing a crime against a Latino? Not a good time to be getting tricked into talking about the invasion.

fadetogray on October 3, 2014 at 3:05 PM

These polls are terrible and far from illustrative of the actual views of American citizens.

The question includes ‘advocating genocide’. Now most folks aren’t at this point really taking a second to think about free speech – so they give an ‘oh my, that sounds terrible…no!’ answer.
Same with the desecration angle – they show a photo of that teen dishonoring a Jesus statue and then ask ‘what do you think’.
‘That’s horrible!’
If that kid was actually sentenced to 2 years or any time in prison there would be outrage…across the board.

So, you know…poll schmoll.
Again.

verbaluce on October 3, 2014 at 3:17 PM

Just who would define hate speech. What the left considers free speech is far different from what the rest of us do. For example, stating any negative facts about blacks (related to crime) or Muslims (regarding terrorism) would be considered hate speech.

If a member of the clergy publicly stated that homosexuality or abortion were sine, the left would label that as hate speech.

This coupled with the fact that some want opponents of the climate change “gospel” jailed gives one cause to worry.

bw222 on October 3, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Will this include criminalizing my hatred of Hate Speech legislation?

verbaluce on October 3, 2014 at 3:01 PM

See you in the gulag, verbie!

Axeman on October 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM

One needn’t be motivated by any animus to be accused of hate speech. It’s a naked accusation hurled to stifle dissent. So any argument against this notion that resembles “I’m free to hate anyone I want!” plays into the adversary’s hands.

Liberals don’t have to believe what they say, and usually don’t in my experience. They are crafting an alternate reality, not dealing with the one the rest of us are stuck with.

So if they can label you a “hater,” especially with govt sanction, it matters not a whit if it’s true in any sense: they get credit for another kill and move on to the next victim.

Akzed on October 3, 2014 at 3:58 PM

So, the local barfly says something off color about mexican illegals coming across th border – HATE SPEECH.

Local Imam preaching death to Jews Christians Americans and promoting chopping off heads of secretaries doing their jobs – PROTECTED RELIGIOUS CONVERSATION…!!!

Who says what, is hate speech? Liberals and socialists will classify anything a Tea Party member says as hate speech while their protected classes, Gays, Moslems, Blacks, Hispanics who preach death to America are protected… No Thanks

Kuffar on October 3, 2014 at 4:18 PM

I support sending 51% of Democrats to Cuba, Venezuela, or the PRK, where speech is controlled more to their liking.

Or, just shoot the traitors before they turn us into a leftist totalitarian state. [Note to resident lunatic fringe nuts: that doesn’t mean the “RINOs”].

Adjoran on October 3, 2014 at 4:19 PM

This is getting real crazy! What next, the way you smile, frown, tone of your voice, body odor, posture? Damn, I wish people had the will to take this country back. Oh wait, my bad, that might be construed as hate speech since our history has been rewritten and we are now the evil empire.

N4646W on October 3, 2014 at 5:47 PM

You DONT

have the RIGHT

to NOT BE offended

Under a CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM!

( MORONS !)

TX-96 on October 3, 2014 at 6:26 PM

listens2glenn on October 3, 2014 at 12:39 PM

.
Not so. I should know, for I am Kraken.

For the liberal socialist there are two kinds of people. People within the Collective, and those outside of the Collective that need to be assimilated.

This is why they come up with contingency pans for those who cannot be assimilated.

They may not get it at first, which is why we get to chuckle at them for not getting the fact that their own internal sub-culture is being mocked.

But they do get it eventually. That’s when the sparks fly and the hilarity begins.

Trust me. I’ve been highly entertained by it, and you can be too.

Star Bird on October 3, 2014 at 12:55 PM

.
Wow … it took me this long to notice your response … shame on me.

I’ve seen and heard Larry Grathwohl before. EVERYONE should.

William Ayers and company should have have at least … been in prison a looong time ago.

It seems to me that Bill Ayers is the leftist revolutionaries’ version of the “prophet Muhammad” in this country. The fact that today he appears as a respected college professor, cloaks his very real, dangerous self.
.
I don’t know when the first opportunity to use this term “collectivist” on some leftists will present itself, but I’ll be glad to pass on the results of it, when it does.
.
P.S. — I wasn’t trying to “out” you … honest.

listens2glenn on October 3, 2014 at 7:10 PM

I’d hate to say it, but hate speech is free speech, depending on who gets to define the term “hate speech”. I think “Piss Jesus” is hate speech, someone else would define it in a different way. Until there is a specific definition of what hate-speech really is, there is no hate speech, only free speech. The definition will have to be specific, easily understandable, and agreed to by all. Until then, it’s all free speech.

bflat879 on October 3, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Poll: 51% of Democrats support criminalizing hate speech

Yep, just two more stinking years and everything will go back to normal.

Uh-huh. Right.

Dr. ZhivBlago on October 3, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Democrats are definitely focused on control these days.

Like a lot of other terms, ‘freedom’ has been re-defined for the modern times to suit a political agenda.

These days, freedom is ‘the right granted by the government to do what the government approves of, in all you do, say, or think’.

If I understand the history of it, that is the kind of freedom the American colonists had, and rejected, in 1776.

s1im on October 3, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Lest you think Republicans and independents stand against criminalizing all forms of offensive expression, though, here are the numbers when YouGov asked whether we should make it a crime to desecrate venerated objects or places use for religious worship

Allahpundit, desecrating “places used for religious worship” is not “offensive expression,” it’s vandalism. It already is a crime. As you said, these two questions should have been asked separately, because for some people (like me) there are two different answers. It isn’t criminal (and shouldn’t be) for someone to desecrate a venerated object that belongs to them. It is criminal (and should be) for someone to vandalize someone else’s real estate (or to steal and desecrate someone else’s property).

The teen in question could conceivably be hit with trespassing, I suppose, but any punishment should be at most community service. I think what he did was silly and pointless, but I don’t really see the point in pressing any charges.

Just because we find something distasteful doesn’t mean it is or should be punishable by law…which is a good thing, because according to my friends I can be quite the stick in the mud.

Cheshire_Kat on October 3, 2014 at 9:42 PM

By ‘hate speech’ they mean any speech they hate. Probably 98% of the content on this site would be criminalized.

s1im on October 4, 2014 at 12:49 AM

By ‘hate speech’ they mean any speech they hate. Probably 98% of the content on this site would be criminalized.

s1im on October 4, 2014 at 12:49 AM

Enough Said.

jaydee_007 on October 4, 2014 at 2:36 AM

a simple question

WHO DECIDES WHAT IS HATE SPEECH

Is it the liberal left

seems what they want is censorship so they can stay in power
what would be hate speech

obamas job performance
solnydra
fast n furious
Benghazi
if you like your healh plan you can keep it, period
shovel ready jobs
a secure border

sniffles1999 on October 4, 2014 at 8:17 AM

“51% of Democrats support criminalizing hate speech”

I reject the thread title/premise. Calling any form of speech “hate” speech is PC and an attempt at censorship. The question is “when did allahpundit accept the leftist agenda?”

RoyalFlush on October 4, 2014 at 9:31 AM

and found bipartisan support for the federal law that provides steeper penalties for crimes motivated by hatred of the victim’s race, religion, gender, or national origin.

And more proof that the end is near. A hint for those who may be a little confused, if you believe in steeper penalties based on motivation than you are not a conservative, you are not a Constitutionalist, you are not really a good American. You are a post-modern and part of the disease.

peacenprosperity on October 4, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Who says what, is hate speech? ….

Kuffar on October 3, 2014 at 4:18 PM

The Party, duh.

Kenosha Kid on October 4, 2014 at 9:32 PM

If you won’t fight to protect the speech you hate, you don’t support free speech at all.

I said I was against it. I’m pro free speech in all forms, including leaking classified information if it serves the public interest. (Basically, things that are classified to protect the government from us, not america from actual enemies.) We can’t have a real debate on an issue if we don’t know the facts involved.

With that said, I think my reasons for being against criminalizing hate speech are slightly different than your reasons. I desire the right to say something because that’s america’s thing. It’s what we do. That doesn’t mean I’m going to use that right to hate on people.

I feel like conservatives feel threatened for an entirely different reason – because they’re worried sometimes what they say does cross the line into hate speech. And I’ll defend your right to say it, but not because I want to say it too.

triple on October 5, 2014 at 1:54 AM

By ‘hate speech’ they mean any speech they hate. Probably 98% of the content on this site would be criminalized.

s1im on October 4, 2014 at 12:49 AM

So, proving my point.

triple on October 5, 2014 at 1:55 AM

With that said, I think my reasons for being against criminalizing hate speech are slightly different than your reasons. I desire the right to say something because that’s america’s thing. It’s what we do. That doesn’t mean I’m going to use that right to hate on people.

I feel like conservatives feel threatened for an entirely different reason – because they’re worried sometimes what they say does cross the line into hate speech. And I’ll defend your right to say it, but not because I want to say it too.

triple on October 5, 2014 at 1:54 AM

You think what makes you feel good, and you feel things that aren’t there.

I have no desire to “hate on people.” What I “fear” is the controlling, tyrannical desire of people that people like you support and elect to public office to criminalize “hate speech” and then define whatever annoying thing I am saying as hate speech.

You claim to support free speech. Then you should be cheering conservatives who oppose “hate speech” laws instead of putting up straw men with which to attack them. But your tribal allegiances are too strong.

“Conservatives are bad” permeates ever nook and cranny of your thinking. So regardless your professed belief, you will support the “liberal” who supports banning “hate speech.”

fadetogray on October 5, 2014 at 8:26 AM

I feel like conservatives feel threatened for an entirely different reason – because they’re worried sometimes what they say does cross the line into hate speech. And I’ll defend your right to say it, but not because I want to say it too.

triple on October 5, 2014 at 1:54 AM

.

By ‘hate speech’ they mean any speech they hate. Probably 98% of the content on this site would be criminalized.

s1im on October 4, 2014 at 12:49 AM

.
So, proving my point.

triple on October 5, 2014 at 1:55 AM

.
Me: No . . . . . you just proved s1im‘s point, that ‘hate speech’ is any speech liberals/socialists/commies don’t like.
.
You : No, he just proved my point … that you’re worried sometimes what you say does cross the line into hate speech.
.
Me: Nope . . . . . you just proved s1im‘s point, that ‘hate speech’ is any speech liberals/socialists/commies don’t like.
.
You : Oh no … he just proved my point … that you’re worried sometimes what you say does cross the line into hate speech.

(repeat, until the end of time)

listens2glenn on October 5, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Evidently Democrats are anti-Constitution.

Dasher on October 5, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Yougov polls via internet, leaving out non internet users. It was founded by pols. wikipedia has the usual disclaimer at the top of the yougov page: ‘the entry appears to be written like an advertisement’, and ‘This article needs additional citations for verification’

IMHO most pollsters are dubious. Agenda is always oblique never obvious

Example, and I am not implying there is an agenda is the yougov website presentation of “Men Still Driving Down NFL Consumer Perception: Women Show Early Rebound”. But, that presentation leads people to certain assumptions that might have little to do with the reasons for the numbers. The perceptions themselves can be used to manipulate public opinion.

Such reports can be used to scare advertisers. It can be used to incite the mob to increase letter writing etc, and to demoralize owners into accepting a transformation of pro football into big guy soccer with a half time of panel discussions exploring how football can become more sensitive to those who dislike football

it is possible men are down trending on NFL because they view the
NFL as unmanly, or because they despise efffeminate sportscaster coverage of the NFL as a nag session instead of a sport entertainment

I mainly just read the title of polls to track of how a pollster is trending

entagor on October 5, 2014 at 10:15 AM

IMHO most pollsters are dubious. Agenda is always oblique never obvious.

entagor on October 5, 2014 at 10:15 AM

.
Sooo . . . . . we’re not in as much trouble as Allah’ seems to implicate ?

listens2glenn on October 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM

So, who defines “hate” speech? Who is in charge? Amazing.

MN J on October 5, 2014 at 1:34 PM

So, who defines “hate” speech? Who is in charge? Amazing.

MN J on October 5, 2014 at 1:34 PM

.
Anyone who opposes capitalism AND Bible standards of morality.

You have to qualify for both parts of that.
.
Holy balls … that means the DEVIL … literally.

listens2glenn on October 5, 2014 at 1:51 PM

“Hate speech” will be defined by the party in power. No doubt after a stolen election.

This definition will no doubt solidify their power permanently. Sound fair?

rpupton on October 5, 2014 at 8:02 PM

The contents of the lefts PC Dictionary are not acceptable in higher education or other scholastic work. Therefore, Free Speech as use by thoughtful people are two words with meaning. For example Free means at not cost and speech is the use of words to create a picture in others minds. Thus, Free Speech are any word that do not cost the sender anything to speak

Hate speech is a concoction in liberals minds that tries to make Hate speech a legitimate profane word that can be punished under legal terminology. Now we have eight things you can not say in public Mr. Carlin.

Fortunately, people who “think” apply meaning to each word. Therefore, Hate is an ill feeling towards another. While speech still creates a picture of the word in others minds of what the sender is saying while their lips are moving.

MSGTAS on October 6, 2014 at 9:25 AM

I feel like conservatives feel threatened for an entirely different reason – because they’re worried sometimes what they say does cross the line into hate speech. And I’ll defend your right to say it, but not because I want to say it too.

triple on October 5, 2014 at 1:54 AM

You’re right … but it’s the same thing.

“Hate speech” is a synthetic classification. There is speech, a primary thing we can identify and “hateful speech” which requires interpretation. But liberals often sound hateful, so I know they are not for banning their own hateful speech.

“Hate speech” is something I don’t know and/or something I don’t believe really exists or mainly exists in the mind of “liberals”. So yes, I’m afraid of crossing over a line that exists mainly in your head. Which is the same thing as saying I fear your tendency to fascism.

Jonathan Haidt published a study which suggests that conservatives can predict liberal responses better than liberals understand conservatives. And since liberal predictions about conservative responses tend to be stereotypical, I can see that the left, in not understanding the mind of conservatives fear what they don’t understand. So they fear that genocidal thoughts will have a much larger purchase in conservative minds, then may actually be the case.

Conservatives would find this ludicrous. Yes, advocacy for genocide is horrid, but it’s own horridness limits its influence and popularity. So you have two bonuses, a person who espouses genocide freely volunteers “speaks and removes all doubt” and we maintain a wider freedom to speak because, at least for the moment, we can trust the market forces to isolate the genocidal advocate.

But it’s not like liberals don’t have chaff theories that they throw out there sometimes. I call them chaff because the liberals don’t appear to invest any real confidence in them; secondly their crap, and thirdly they try to use them as tools to put conservatives on the defensive.

What I’m talking about is the “dog whistle” theory, known by its more classical defintion as “straw man”. Conservatives are ambiguously genocidal. But you can’t get any real clear genocidal messages from them because they are afraid of the unpopularity of the idea and they don’t want to be exposed for their hatred. Thus genocide is sooooo unpopular that even though we want to espouse it, we can’t. Thus the unpopularity of genocide (market forces) limits the serious damage it can do.

Thus the theories are the same, but one is all implication. And despite liberal claims to know what conservatives think and how we’re afraid to voice our real opinions, they don’t do to well at actually predicting our responses, even though they “know” we cover up.

But really, this is the whole theory-over-performance deficit that liberals have in general.

And this is why we would have to get into the offense of a genocidal utterance. It’s not that we’re banning genocidal speech for what it might do, because we both have theories about how likely that is. We have to talk about the damage that genocidal speech does. When somebody talks of exterminating another kind of human being, that the person of that kind can’t help but feel threatened. And we want to promote the idea that everybody is on equal footing and equally deserving of respect.

But that damage can be mitigated, again, by the constant prescription that liberals give to conservatives (and conservative give to liberals): “settle down”. That is, take time to think how likely an event is before you go off on it.

However, where I found that conservatives think of this as a general prescription, this conversation shows that liberals generally prescribe this to their opposition and their opposition only. Because it is the offense the reaction itself which causes the “damage”–so that “you” doesn’t have to settle down, because nobody should have said it in the first place–regardless of how remote the chance is of it having an effect, other than exposing the genocidal idiot.

And we’ve seen liberal apoplexy at the “eliminationist rhetoric” of Michele Bachmann when she said: “I’m going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back.” Unless those materials were arms, ammunition, or weapons manuals, I can’t see how the lib apoplexy on this statement was justified simply on the voodoo words “armed and dangerous”.

Again, that’s more of a Haidt-moment. You don’t really read conservative minds the way you pretend to, but you don’t know what dark forces swirl around in the abyss of conservative minds and what lengths they can be lead to, so it sounds scary.

Wikipedia doesn’t try to really clear the quote up, it simply makes some gesture to that the quote “went viral” before Bachmann’s office could clarify that it was metaphorical–that is, a lot of libs didn’t calm down and passed around an frenzied take on three words really, really fast before someone could read what she actually said in context. (Not that that mattered to a convinced portion of libs, though.)

You guys don’t have that good of record of being psychic despite your implied claims, or really “calming down” although this apparently is the first thing conservatives need to do, always. Nor do you guys have too good a record, and scientifically measured, of knowing what conservatives are really saying.

So yeah, we’re afraid to cross an imaginary line in your mind. Your suggestion that enough conservatives actually cross a genocidal or racist line is in keeping with your being a lib, and a lib’s pretense at mind reading, mixed with the lib’s tendency to fear the dark forces of the conservative mind.

It’s really nothing new. But it also makes you predictably dangerous.

So you go ahead and “feel” what you like. It’s ridiculous that you put on airs that you are above us in nobility, that you’ll defend my right to say genocidal things, but no one should construe that you want to say those things. But that when conservatives fear the capricious category of “hate speech”, their support comes from their fear that they are saying hateful things.

Axeman on October 8, 2014 at 12:12 PM

That was an awful poll question for “hate speech”. Misleading, looks like it was designed to say “Look how many Americans really want hate speech laws.” I doubt even that many democrats really want hate speech laws. Was not a realistic question – much better could have been devised. Shame on YouGov for this sham.

Chessplayer on June 7, 2015 at 2:24 PM