1 hour ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Why would you think recommending an physical assault on someone for being transexual is not hateful? 

Context is important but you aren't even following along. Go back and read it again,  only you are talking about a mentally ill tranny.

Some of you don't seem to realize there is no consistent or widely accepted definition of exactly what "hate speech" is.  Many use the term to mean speech they find offensive or with which they don't agree.  Just like pornography or beauty, hate speech is very much in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.  

 

It comes down to this:  if you agreed with whatever it was Charlie Kirk was saying, it isn't hate speech.  If you strongly disagree, you might choose to call it hate speech, but that's only your opinion.  In the U.S., what some are calling "hate speech" isn't illegal.   It is, as several Supreme Court decisions have decided, constitutionally protected.  In terms of U.S. law, Charlie Kirk couldn't have uttered "hate speech" because there is no such thing as hate speech in U.S. law.   So if it isn't illegal, what remains is personal opinion and that, as we all know, is something everyone has.

 

Edit in:  I should have noted  some countries do have laws against hate speech, but that is irrelevant when it comes to Charlie Kirk.

5 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

Some of you don't seem to realize there is no consistent or widely accepted definition of exactly what "hate speech" is.  Many use the term to mean speech they find offensive or with which they don't agree.  Just like pornography or beauty, hate speech is very much in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.  

 

It comes down to this:  if you agreed with whatever it was Charlie Kirk was saying, it isn't hate speech.  If you strongly disagree, you might choose to call it hate speech, but that's only your opinion.  In the U.S., what some are calling "hate speech" isn't illegal.   It is, as several Supreme Court decisions have decided, constitutionally protected.  In terms of U.S. law, Charlie Kirk couldn't have uttered "hate speech" because there is no such thing as hate speech in U.S. law.   So if it isn't illegal, what remains is personal opinion and that, as we all know, is something everyone has.

Thats why it is nothing more than BS. Using it is for cowards, lol. Oh my feelings !

7 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

Some of you don't seem to realize there is no consistent or widely accepted definition of exactly what "hate speech" is.  Many use the term to mean speech they find offensive or with which they don't agree.  Just like pornography or beauty, hate speech is very much in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.  

 

It comes down to this:  if you agreed with whatever it was Charlie Kirk was saying, it isn't hate speech.  If you strongly disagree, you might choose to call it hate speech, but that's only your opinion.  In the U.S., what some are calling "hate speech" isn't illegal.   It is, as several Supreme Court decisions have decided, constitutionally protected.  In terms of U.S. law, Charlie Kirk couldn't have uttered "hate speech" because there is no such thing as hate speech in U.S. law.   So if it isn't illegal, what remains is personal opinion and that, as we all know, is something everyone has.

 

Edit in:  I should have noted  some countries do have laws against hate speech, but that is irrelevant when it comes to Charlie Kirk.

Legal or illegal, hate speech is still hate speech.

12 minutes ago, candide said:

Legal or illegal, hate speech is still hate speech.

 Could you please define "hate speech" for me? And give an example of what you consider to be hate speech?

On 9/13/2025 at 10:45 AM, candide said:

Is that hateful enough for you? 🤣

 

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/tpusas-charlie-kirk-trans-people

 

"In a video released Monday by Right Wing Watch, Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk calls transgender people a “throbbing middle finger to God” and “an abomination.” He follows up by deadnaming University of Pennsylvania transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, stating, “you’re an abomination to God.” Kirk, an influential conservative who runs Turning Point USA, has previously made statements that could be interpreted to promote violence towards transgender people, such as the time he called for transgender people to be “taken care of” like men did in the “1950s and 60s.”...

 

(In the 1950s and 1960s, transgender people and other LGBTs in the United States faced systemic discrimination, criminalization, and medical pathologization.)

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

 Could you please define "hate speech" for me? And give an example of what you consider to be hate speech?

See my post above.

13 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

 Could you please define "hate speech" for me? And give an example of what you consider to be hate speech?

 

Yeah we know in MAGA world there is no hate speech, especially not when spread by their own followers, but don't say anything about Israel as it will be labelled as antisemitism.

5 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

Yeah we know in MAGA world there is no hate speech, especially not when spread by their own followers, but don't say anything about Israel as it will be labelled as antisemitism.

 

On 9/13/2025 at 1:02 PM, Jeff the Chef said:

I disagree with a lot of what he says, I have no problem with him saying what he did, the same as anyone who disagrees with him shouldn't have a problem with him saying it, freedom of speech is a fundamental right.

 

RSN News

8 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

Yeah we know in MAGA world there is no hate speech, especially not when spread by their own followers, but don't say anything about Israel as it will be labelled as antisemitism.

 

 Only when it is antisemitism. 

 

Unlike the term "hate speech,"  a widely accepted working definition does exist for antisemitism.  The legally non-binding definition proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Association has been been adopted by 45 countries and over 1,000 other entities, ranging from international organizations to universities and other institutions. You can read it here:

https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

6 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

 Only when it is antisemitism. 

 

Unlike the term "hate speech,"  a widely accepted working definition does exist for antisemitism.  The legally non-binding definition proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Association has been been adopted by 45 countries and over 1,000 other entities, ranging from international organizations to universities and other institutions. You can read it here:

https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

Hate speech is a made for media term, the same as "assault weapon" another made up term. There is no such thing.

1 hour ago, Slowhand225 said:

Hate speech is a made for media term, the same as "assault weapon" another made up term. There is no such thing.

 

I still hope someone gives a definition of "hate speech" and provides an example.   If someone believes hate speech is a real thing, they should be able to define it.

1 hour ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

 Only when it is antisemitism. 

 

Unlike the term "hate speech,"  a widely accepted working definition does exist for antisemitism.  The legally non-binding definition proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Association has been been adopted by 45 countries and over 1,000 other entities, ranging from international organizations to universities and other institutions. You can read it here:

https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

Charlie Kirk agreed that there is no such thing as hate speech. And despite being an over the top supporter of Israel, he was opposed to the Trump administration push to ban speech that was harshly critical of Israel.

 

BTW, jd vance said today that kirk never said this.

 

 

 

On 9/13/2025 at 10:45 AM, candide said:

Is that hateful enough for you? 🤣

 

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/tpusas-charlie-kirk-trans-people

 

"In a video released Monday by Right Wing Watch, Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk calls transgender people a “throbbing middle finger to God” and “an abomination.” He follows up by deadnaming University of Pennsylvania transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, stating, “you’re an abomination to God.” Kirk, an influential conservative who runs Turning Point USA, has previously made statements that could be interpreted to promote violence towards transgender people, such as the time he called for transgender people to be “taken care of” like men did in the “1950s and 60s.”...

 

(In the 1950s and 1960s, transgender people and other LGBTs in the United States faced systemic discrimination, criminalization, and medical pathologization.)

 

 

 

On 9/14/2025 at 12:47 PM, Evil Penevil said:

 

I still hope someone gives a definition of "hate speech" and provides an example.   If someone believes hate speech is a real thing, they should be able to define it.

I gave you examples before. Are they enough hate speech for you?

1 hour ago, candide said:

 

I gave you examples before. Are they enough hate speech for you?

 

No one has proposed a definition of hate speech and I consider the examples you gave to be critical opinions, not hate speech.  That's the point.  Without a definition of hate speech to which  everyone can agree or a law that  clearly states the type of speech that's prohibited, what is or isn't hate speech is merely a matter of personal opinion.

 

I regard accusations that the IDF is committing genocide in Gaza or that Israel is an apartheid, colonial settler state to be antisemitic hate speech, but some members of AN would disagree sharply.

 

Who is it that gets to decide what's hate speech?

Just now, Evil Penevil said:

 

No one has proposed a definition of hate speech and I consider the examples you gave to be critical opinions, not hate speech.  That's the point.  Without a definition of hate speech to which  everyone can agree or a law that  clearly states the type of speech that's prohibited, what is or isn't hate speech is merely a matter of personal opinion.

 

I regard accusations that the IDF is committing genocide in Gaza or that Israel is an apartheid, colonial settler state to be antisemitic hate speech, but some members of AN would disagree sharply.

 

Who is it that gets to decide what's hate speech?

So suggesting that transgender people should be “taken care of” like men did in the “1950s and 60s.” knowing that, at this time, they were systematically ostracised, arrested and intitutionalized, is not hate speech but only a critical opinion....

 

I don't need a formal definition to identify it as hate speech, hating comment, incitement to hatred, etc... whatever the legal definition in a given country may be.

 

3 hours ago, candide said:

So suggesting that transgender people should be “taken care of” like men did in the “1950s and 60s.” knowing that, at this time, they were systematically ostracised, arrested and intitutionalized, is not hate speech but only a critical opinion....

 

That quote has been taken out of context to give it an ominous meaning.  It came during a discussion with Riley Gaines on the The Charlie Kirk Show.   Gaines had described how traumatizing it was for her and other female athletes to share the locker room with Lia Thomas, a 6'4" male with a penis.  Charlie was referring to how men would have stopped a another male from entering a woman's locker room in the 1950s and 1960s.  He was not advocating violence against trans people simply because they are trans. 

 

Charlie didn't say trans people should be "taken care of."  His exact words- and they weren't grammatically correct- were  "someone should have just uh took care of it the way we used to took care take care of things in the 1950s or 60s."  I bolded the word it because it referred to the situation in the locker room and  NOT trans people in general.  He  was suggesting men  would have blocked another male from entering  a locker room for females  in the 1950s or 1960s.

 

I do not believe that quote in its correct wording and full context is  hate speech and yes, it is merely  critical or negative opinion.

 

3 hours ago, candide said:

I don't need a formal definition to identify it as hate speech, hating comment, incitement to hatred, etc... whatever the legal definition in a given country may be.

 

I agreed with you.  I don't need a formal definition to know hate speech when I hear or read it.  The problem is, this results in many different concepts of what is or isn't hate speech.

17 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

 

That quote has been taken out of context to give it an ominous meaning.  It came during a discussion with Riley Gaines on the The Charlie Kirk Show.   Gaines had described how traumatizing it was for her and other female athletes to share the locker room with Lia Thomas, a 6'4" male with a penis.  Charlie was referring to how men would have stopped a another male from entering a woman's locker room in the 1950s and 1960s.  He was not advocating violence against trans people simply because they are trans. 

 

Charlie didn't say trans people should be "taken care of."  His exact words- and they weren't grammatically correct- were  "someone should have just uh took care of it the way we used to took care take care of things in the 1950s or 60s."  I bolded the word it because it referred to the situation in the locker room and  NOT trans people in general.  He  was suggesting men  would have blocked another male from entering  a locker room for females  in the 1950s or 1960s.

 

I do not believe that quote in its correct wording and full context is  hate speech and yes, it is merely  critical or negative opinion.

 

 

I agreed with you.  I don't need a formal definition to know hate speech when I hear or read it.  The problem is, this results in many different concepts of what is or isn't hate speech.

Ok

On 9/12/2025 at 10:50 PM, JAG said:

At the risk of triggering the usual suspects, and aware I am joining in what is a fairly unsubtle and obvious attempt to pick a fight: to suggest that a certain number of deaths is acceptable to allow for the Second Amendment (a statement I believe Mr Kirk made publicly on more than one occasion) is pretty hateful, particularly to those whose children have been shot dead lin their classrooms.

Let's apply this to vaccinations.