Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

It's really hard to tell the difference between what is genuinely offensive and what is not.

No easy answers. In this case, maybe there is a relatively simple rule: Supporting democracy must not in itself be regarded as offensive...

It is hard to tell, that is true. And that reality is exploited to silence opposition and control others.

That’s why language policing, hate speech laws, Twitter mobs, and bully-the-bully efforts are abominations. So really, the answer is easy: everyone has the right to offend, and has no right not to be offended. Your simple rule doesn’t go far enough.

Hate-speech laws exist because people are programmable.

Try and tell me your opinions are your own and the books and media you consume do not own some portion of them.

Hate-speech laws exist to prevent the programming of people to systematically hate and exterminate other people, a lesson that has been learned many times over in history.

If hate-speech laws exist to deal with people that are programmed, wouldn't it also follow that hate-speech laws might exist because programmed people want to control the speech of others?

It would go like this: hate speech is first yelling fire in a theater, then it's espousing bigotry, then it's holding the wrong opinions, until it's finally speaking ill of the Party. That's also a lesson that has been learned many times over in history.

We're all programmable, sure. And I think it's important for their to be competing voices such that we don't end up in the Party.

But some level of social cohesion is desirable, and I think starting at the level of 'not allowed to advocate for the rape and murder of peoples' is a reasonable step towards ensuring less people think that is viable.

And to attain that social cohesion, outlawing wrongthink is certainly a way. It is allowed to advocate doing harm to people, it's just that you have to be selective. You can't do it to protected classes, but unprotected groups are just fine, which is why I believe the moral case for hate speech laws typically falls flat. If it was about morals, it would target everybody equally. It doesn't, so it isn't.

That's not true at all. Maybe in America, I have no idea, but where I'm from its applied equally.

I've found it to typically not be applied equally, neither in the US nor in Europe (which makes sense, since it's designed to protect marginalized groups). For a quick test, replace some words, i.e. "all X are ..." and make it "all Y are ...", switch minorities and majorities around - you'll be able to tell whether it's considered hate speech then. #YesAllXYZ

Can you provide me with an example?

"Kill all men". There's plenty of generalizations, insults and derogatory statements against groups, it's just not a problem if those groups aren't perceived as oppressed. Change a word or two and voila: hate speech.

Can you provide me of an example where kill all men is not identified as hate speech?

This sounds too much like you moving the goal post along, and I've had those conversations before; I did not find them fruitful. Next up "can you provide a case number where 'kill all $foo' was classified as hate speech by a federal judge who's first name starts with an E".

You can google that sentence, you can read defenses of it and make up your mind. I'm not that passionate about changing a single opinion that I'm going to waste time chasing after your ever expanding requirements.

Why bother replying if you're not going to be charitable in my assumptions?

I had never heard of the term but I would certainly agree that it's hate speech. It seems to me that it was a twitter hashtag that some people thought was funny.

I don't agree with it but I also think that an equivalent hashtag #killallwomen would have an equally hard time being brought before a judge.