Speech disparaging of conspiracy theorists is hate speech
8 2018-04-22 by CelineHagbard
Using critical theory to argue, we can show that conspiracy theorists are a class worthy of protection as we are a) a minority within the populace, b) historically persecuted by the powers of the state and other institutions, c) are often characterized as a group by the worst examples of those who claim our identity.
Conspiracy theorism can be broadly cast for sociological purposes as a group of classes like a religion. Within the class, there are various schools of thought, mostly non-hierarchically organized but some are, that share all or some of the same beliefs about the "true nature of reality" as they see it. Functionally, it's the same as the broad class of religious belief itself. Take Christianity: there are some dogmatic and hierarchical denominations like Catholicism, but there are many other small congregations with no further structure, and people who believe in and practice the religion without adhering to anyone else's dogma.
In Christianity, there are a lot of good people doing good work in the world, and there are also people who abuse the name of religion for their own wicked ends. In Western culture, though to an ever lesser extent now, the Church was generally forgiven the misdeeds done in its name because of the good done in its name. Yet if you look at historically persecuted peoples, including so-called "heretics" of the church throughout the middle ages, these groups and individuals are judged on the worst things done in their name, which are often exaggerated.
Conspiracy theorism is the modern day heresy to the modern day Religion of the State, in its necessary function in society, in how it threatens existing power dynamics, and in how those existing power dynamics seek to silence the voice of the heretic. Those who mock, ridicule, persecute, or otherwise try to silence the voice of conspiracy theorists are the modern equivalent of the Roman Catholic Church burning books and heretics.
154 comments
1 DonBB 2018-04-22
So, thought crime? To get this straight, you are a conspiracy theorist ... advocating for thought crime? And not talking about threats or actual acts of violence against conspiracy theorists...just disparaging remarks.
Gonna have to be a hard no from me.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
Hate crime =/= thought crime
I don't believe there should be any such thing as a hate crime, and definitely not a thought crime, but as long as hate crimes are laws on the public books, I would like to seek for their protection.
If it is a hate crime to make a disparaging comment about a person because of their religion, it should be a hate crime to make a disparaging comment about a person because they are a conspiracy theorist. I disagree with the law, but if that is to be the law, I want equal protection under it.
1 DonBB 2018-04-22
It sounds like you just don't want anyone to be able criticize you. I think you just need to grow some thicker skin.
1 Thy_Weapon_Of_War 2018-04-22
No. That's what the Leftists who have enacted "hate speech" laws want. And are getting.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
For me, this has nothing to do with conservatism or leftism, and if anything, I'd consider myself a left anarchist.
This is about two concepts: should "hate speech" or "hate crimes" be a legal concept, and if so, should the law be applied equally. The first question is about authoritarian vs. libertarian and has nothing to do with left or right, and the second is about equal protection under the law, which should be agreeable to every fair person, whether left or right, authoritarian or libertarian.
1 Thy_Weapon_Of_War 2018-04-22
The very concept of having laws is "authoritarian". A society of pure anarchy cannot, and should not, exist.
I agree with you 100% that "hate speech" and "hate crime" laws should not exist.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
I think you should read about or listen to more voices on what anarchism is and isn't about. It's about responsible adults make consensual decisions with each other as individuals or groups without the threat of coercive government.
Check out this James Corbett video about spontaneous order for more on the topic. Also, I'd check out agorism and voluntaryism on his website. Corbett has a wealth of good content on both, and I'd also check out other people's perspectives. Anarchism is not what you might think it is.
1 politicalconspiracie 2018-04-22
A black person hunting and killing specifically white people just because they are white shouldn’t be a hate crime?
1 Thy_Weapon_Of_War 2018-04-22
We already have laws against murder. A "hate crime" law requiring additional punishment is not needed. Furthermore, the principle of "hate crime" laws is wrong. People should not be punished for their thoughts or free speech. With a "hate crime", you are adding additional criminality and punishment for their beliefs or speech.
1 politicalconspiracie 2018-04-22
Do you feel that it would be useful metric of statistics to be aware of and tack so we can notice hate crime trends?
1 Thy_Weapon_Of_War 2018-04-22
It may be useful to track particular motives of crimes. But that can be done without having "hate crime" laws.
1 politicalconspiracie 2018-04-22
I think I can agree with you on that. What about if you charge someone with a hate crime, but do not add anymore penalties to the crime? Basically just charge them with the crime, not punish the behavior, but just for tracking trends.
Do I make sense?
1 Thy_Weapon_Of_War 2018-04-22
If we do that, I would not use the terminology "hate crime" for tracking purposes. Mainly because it gives legitimacy to "hate crime" laws that are used in other parts of the world.
1 politicalconspiracie 2018-04-22
What terminology would you use or prefer?
1 Thy_Weapon_Of_War 2018-04-22
Maybe track a crime by saying it was "racially-motivated", etc.
1 politicalconspiracie 2018-04-22
I can agree with that
1 DonBB 2018-04-22
I disagree and i will explain why. Hate crimes are meant to serve as an attack on an entire group of people. If i kill someone because they are Muslim, for example, I am taking action to intimidate all Muslims. Just like lynchings were not really meant to just serve "justice," they were meant to intimidate all black people and show them their place in society.
I believe hate crimes are effective in punishing people who are trting to frighten or harass an entire group of people.
1 Thy_Weapon_Of_War 2018-04-22
It's still punishing people for their beliefs/speech. Sure, it would also be "effective" to pass hate crime laws and start punishing "racists" for their "hate speech". The problem is that it's unconstitutional, because it criminalizes beliefs/speech.
1 DonBB 2018-04-22
It's not punishing people for their beliefs. It's punishing people for actions. No one has ever been prosecuted for a hate crime just because their racist or sexist or against a certain religion.
1 Thy_Weapon_Of_War 2018-04-22
It's adding extra punishment to the action because of a belief. So it is punishing beliefs.
1 DonBB 2018-04-22
Unless it's kneeling during the national anthem.
1 Thy_Weapon_Of_War 2018-04-22
You are conflating criticism of speech with a desire to outlaw certain speech. Conservatives are not calling for Leftists to be imprisoned for their speech. To the contrary, Leftists want "hate speech" laws which will put conservatives in prison for their speech.
1 DonBB 2018-04-22
Who has ever proposed a law to put conservatives in prison?
1 Thy_Weapon_Of_War 2018-04-22
Maybe it has not been seriously proposed yet in the USA. But such hate speech laws already exist in many European nations. And those laws are almost exclusively used to imprison Christians, white nationalists, and other conservatives for their speech.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
This has nothing to do with criticism of ideas. I welcome that any time and always.
This has to do with language that disparages one person or a group of people based on a broader stereotype of a group which they belong to. As far as I understand it, that is one definition of bigoted language. If it is not considered civil to disparage a person because of the religion they belong to, it should not be considered civil to disparage a person because they're a conspiracy theorist.
And my skin's plenty thick. Like I said, I don't think there should be any such thing as a hate crime, but if there is, conspiracy theorist should be a protected class. If religion gets the protection of the law, conspiracy theorism should get protection of the law.
1 TakeDaBait 2018-04-22
I think it's funny that you compare conspiracy theorists to religious people lol.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
I don't, I see conspiracy theorists as the heretics to the religion of the state. People that mock or persecute conspiracy theorists because of their heresy against the state are like people who mocked and persecuted people due to their heresy against the Roman Catholic Church (which included the protestant reformers, the separatists, the atheists, and the materialists.)
The conspiracy mockers are the religious.
1 Flytape 2018-04-22
I guess atheists are classed as religious people too.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
They should have protection under the same laws that protect the religious.
1 DonBB 2018-04-22
And they do!
1 DonBB 2018-04-22
They are! Its even listed out in FBI stats on hate crimes.
1 benjamindees 2018-04-22
There are no such laws. Don't be a dipshit.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
The courts in the US have generally deferred to the First Amendment over legislation that outlaws hate speech, but the UK has laws which do proscribe speech which intends to stir up religious hatred.
1 YourselfonaShelf 2018-04-22
I don't see where OP advocated for censoring speech that disparages conspiracy theorists, only that it is quite similar, in fact nearly identical to other contexts of speech that are considered "hate speech". I certainly don't see where OP called it a "crime".
1 Flytape 2018-04-22
There have definitely been acts of violence against Conspiracy theorists.
Bill Cooper anyone?
1 gematrix 2018-04-22
A dying 'breed', alternate theorists take the time to not accept popularized stories of events as fact but investigate and present findings and implications. Most don't have the patience as would much rather be texting ever 30secs of waking life.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
I don't think it's a dying breed at all. In fact, I think there are more conspiracy theorists today. More than half the country believe Donald Trump and Russia engaged in some conspiracy to rig the election. More than half believe Hillary Clinton has engaged in one or more conspiracies throughout her career. If you add these people up, you cover most of the country, and anyone who believes either is by definition a conspiracy theorist.
We don't have to defend what it is to be conspiracy theorists, we just have to show other people that they already are conspiracy theorists.
1 machocamacho88 2018-04-22
The divide comes in when the establishment backs one conspiracy theory over another. While it is true that Russia handing the election to trump is a conspiracy theory, it is not considered a conspiracy theory by the establishment. It is considered fact.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
I would agree. The establishment today, which is broadly neoliberal and globalist, acts as the state religion of the day. It determines the Overton window of what is allowed to be questioned and what is not. Donald Trump is allowed and encouraged to be questioned and criticized, while the system itself is off limits in all mainstream media and much of the alternative media itself.
1 Thy_Weapon_Of_War 2018-04-22
Leftists who want "hate speech" laws want to continue to be able to espouse their hatred of Christians, whites/Europeans, and conservatives.
"Hate speech" laws are only used to silence Christians those on the conservative/right.
"Hate speech" laws are a commie/Leftist ruse to silence conservatives, for the ever-advancing establishment of the Marxist totalitarian societies we live in.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
Don't buy into the left/right paradigm, man. The left and right are both corralling you, by design, toward authoritarian solutions. Left and right are the Problem and Reaction, which is different from person to person, but the Solution is always more authoritarianism.
We always get more war, more kickbacks and corruption, more control over our money and our speech and our freedom no matter who's "in charge," doesn't matter left or right.
1 Thy_Weapon_Of_War 2018-04-22
I agree that Republican and Democrat are a "paradigm" that is controlled by the same elite.
But the "right" and "left" as ideologies are diametrically opposed belief systems. When you boil it all down, the "right" (in Western nations) is essentially Christians, and the "left" are those who are anti-Christian.
As I mentioned in another comment in this post, the very concept of having law is "authoritarian". And we must have laws in society. For instance, we must have laws that prohibit murder, rape, and stealing.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
Why? I think you need to support this statement with argument and evidence. Human societies have dealt with murder, rape, and stealing without laws for millennia, and we can do it without laws again.
Indeed, that is the question. I choose to live under my own authority yet with a responsibility to all.
1 Thy_Weapon_Of_War 2018-04-22
How do you "deal" with rape, murder, and stealing without laws criminalizing those things? I don't follow.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
Picture a Cro-Magnon clan of a couple dozen people, who sometimes dealt with other clans. They would deal with rape, murder, and stealing from outside their clan by the innate understanding of mutual defense; they would just work together to protect each other. Internal to the clan, we can be sure there wasn't written law, and probably not even explicitly codified law, but someone who stole would be punished by the person he stole from. Natural law is innate in humanity.
Human societies have dealt with all these things for hundreds of thousands of years without explicit laws , and we can do it today.
1 Thy_Weapon_Of_War 2018-04-22
But there is still a law. You are calling it a "natural law". And I would agree that a form of "natural law" (loosely speaking) is the supreme law. I would identify that as the one true Law that comes from "God."
The point is that murder, stealing, and rape are always wrong. In other words, an absolute moral standard exists. A "law" is defined in this way -- an absolute standard governing morality or behavior.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
Then I think we are in perfect agreement on this point.
Our only point of contention that I believe this natural law can be implemented without the use of a coercive state with a monopoly on violence, and I think you might believe a state of some form is required.
1 nuttin_butt_love 2018-04-22
How do you propose we scale this concept to apply to a country of hundreds of millions of people?
1 Hail_the_IT_Goddess 2018-04-22
Absolutely good points all. We all know that the term 'conspiracy theorist' is a CIA label. The suggestion that we should be a protected class is a perfect turn against thought policing tactics.
Conspiracy is about exploring all available data and making informed decisions for yourself. We must protect this, it's the foundation of liberty.
Side observation: I've been in this sub for years, and in recent months the variety of posts here has become abysmal. While political conspiracies are common and generally appreciated, it's starting to drowned out other topics. Can we begin to strike a balance while encouraging the more mainstream political conspiracies in other subs?
1 politicalconspiracie 2018-04-22
I think your second paragraph contradicts your third paragraph
1 Hail_the_IT_Goddess 2018-04-22
How so?
1 politicalconspiracie 2018-04-22
Because if we want to entertain all ideas and theories then we shouldn’t be encouraging only specific types of conspiracies to another sub.
1 Hail_the_IT_Goddess 2018-04-22
You're reading a bit much into the Side Note there. This sub is a catchall for conspiracy, and there are subs dedicated to certain conspiracies. Politely directing that content to those dedicated areas is in no way discouraging discourse.
1 politicalconspiracie 2018-04-22
I think directing them into another sub instead of this sub reduces those amounts of posts in this sub. Wouldn't you agree with that?
1 Hail_the_IT_Goddess 2018-04-22
I think k that political conspiracies will always be popular, and objecting to beating a dead horse is not the same as intentional censorship.
1 politicalconspiracie 2018-04-22
Would it decrease posts about political conspiracies in this sub?
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
Exactly.
Yes, it's both the foundation of liberty, and if we are to have anything but an authoritarian government, the foundation of any functioning democracy.
Check out the sticky about the /new queue. It's all about posting good content and upvoting and participating in good threads on /new and /controversial. Thats how we get a better balance, and there's only so much the mods can do; it has to start from the users making this place what they want it to be.
1 DrWigglesMcGulicutty 2018-04-22
The very fact that one is a conspiracy theorists means they are criticizing someones thoughts, ideas, beliefs and or narrative. You want the freedom to do that you will have to accept counter criticism.
1 YourselfonaShelf 2018-04-22
So, if someone is looking in-depth at the validity of the concept of "bigfoot", let's say, they are criticizing someone else's beliefs and it is "hate speech"? And, in return, they deserve to be marginalized, called horrible names, stalked and doxxed on the internet?
1 DrWigglesMcGulicutty 2018-04-22
You would need to provide a real-life example of this. You jump from criticizing an idea to hate speech without explanation.
1 YourselfonaShelf 2018-04-22
What is your definition of "hate speech"?
1 DrWigglesMcGulicutty 2018-04-22
I didn't bring it up so it is not relative.
1 YourselfonaShelf 2018-04-22
How can I provide examples of "hate speech" if I don't know the context of your definition?
That's fine. Keep illustrating OP's point.
1 DrWigglesMcGulicutty 2018-04-22
I was asking for an example of the entirety of the situation you were describing so I could understand what you were trying to say. Never did I ask for an example of hate speech.
But thanks for the attempt to slander someone interested in your thoughts.
1 gaslightlinux 2018-04-22
He's asking for a real life example of what you are talking about. You need to define what you are talking about, not him.
1 White-Knee-Grow 2018-04-22
there's no such thing sweetheart
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
Yes, precisely, that is what we do as conspiracy theorists; we attack the idea, but we should not attack the person. I welcome any criticism at all on my ideas, but I do not want people to be attacked personally because of their beliefs, whether that be religious beliefs or conspiracy theory beliefs.
1 DrWigglesMcGulicutty 2018-04-22
Then you need to start a church of conspiracy.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
That's like saying I need to belong to or start a church to be considered a Christian, or being given protection under the law as a Christian.
I have no desire to be a part of or start any church of conspiracy. I want equal protection under the law.
1 DrWigglesMcGulicutty 2018-04-22
Have you considered how the law could offer that protection and how those laws would be written? It is an impossible task I believe. Unless you form an organised group that can fit into predefined protection classes you will have a long and costly battle that seems doomed to fail.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
I claim it as my religious belief as a heresy against the religion of statism, just as Protestantism was a set of religious beliefs formed by heresy against the Roman Catholic Church.
1 chuck_94 2018-04-22
In order for that to happen you’ll need to prove that this is a legitimate religion and the religion of statism is also a legitimate religion....good luck...
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
Prove to me that Christianity is a legitimate religion.
1 chuck_94 2018-04-22
Alright if that’s what you’re going with (for background I believe in Christ, I do not belong to a church) then let me rephrase:
Prove to those that make the laws that this is a legit religion. It’s not up to me to prove Christianity is a religion it’s up to you to prove to those that make the hate laws that conspiracy is a legit religion.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
I have no real interest in proving it to those who make the laws. I speak to individuals, not to governments whose legitimacy I reject.
I do this by pointing out the absurd, arbitrary, and capricious nature of their laws. If the state and its bureaucracy can decide whether my beliefs constitute a religion or not, and whether I deserve equal protection under the law on the basis of that decision, then I do not actually possess religious freedom; I have freedom only to choose among those religions the state has deemed valid. In other words, by recognizing some sets or religious beliefs while refusing to recognize others, the state has established several religions in direct contradiction to the First Amendment (in the context of the US, at least).
1 chuck_94 2018-04-22
Indeed and I’d agree, at least in part not in whole. But thanks for the discourse sir. I appreciate it have a good evening :)
1 gaslightlinux 2018-04-22
Then don't expect protection under the law. The law doesn't just happen. One must defend and exercise their rights. Just because you have free speech doesn't the government can't stop you from exercising it, it just means you can sue them if they do that.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
For the equal protection part of this post, I'm not referring to my right to speech, but to hate crimes legislation that grants extra protections to one class of victims (religious people), but not to a class I belong to which is functionally the same (conspiracy theorist). If a person can be charged with a more serious crime for harming a person based on their religion, a person should be charged with a more serious crime for harming a person based on their belief in one or more conspiracy theories.
On free speech I think we agree.
1 gaslightlinux 2018-04-22
Free speech was an example.
Being a conspiracy theorist is not a religion unless you form a church.
Being a conspiracy theorist would be closer to a philosophical / social / historical view point. There is no equal protection for that under the law.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
Can I be a Christian without a church? A Buddhist without a sangha?
I realize there is no such protection at present, I'm arguing that if there is protection for religion, there should be for conspiracy theorists as well. I don't really see any functional difference between believing in a religion like Christianity or believing in a political philosophy like Marxism or libertarianism. They both have core tenets and beliefs about right action and the proper structuring of interpersonal and social relationships, both have significant variation between the beliefs of any two adherents, and are ultimately determined by an individual's preferences.
1 gaslightlinux 2018-04-22
There isn't equal protection for Marxism or Liberatarianism either. They are not founded as religions. If you found them as religions, then they get equal protection.
You don't even need to be a Christian or a Buddhist or a religion to get protection for the Hate Crimes. If the person thinks you are that religion and attacks you for being that religion, then it doesn't matter whether or not you are that religion.
Again, you seem to think the law is this think that "just is." You are acting like if you create an argument good enough it will be accepted. That's not how it works. That's why I was saying before (with the free speech example) that you actually have to exercise and defend your rights.
No matter how much you try to argue that your ideas are similar to religion, the court will not accept that. You will be laughed out. At the same time, you can actually get status for a ridiculous religion -- being a Jedi would be the example -- and if someone attacks you for that, that would be a hate crime.
Your ability to use language and loopholes is not going to fly in the court, nor should it.
1 gaslightlinux 2018-04-22
To be given protection under the law as a religion, you need to be a religion.
1 Ayzmo 2018-04-22
1 eleminnop 2018-04-22
So what do we do if they are actually child-murdering pedophiles?
1 Hardinator 2018-04-22
You? Nothing, you are some nobody on the internet. We have law enforcement for that.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
And what if our law enforcement is corrupt? Your argument seems to rest on the premise that the people can trust the state. Do you feel that people in America have equal justice in front of the law in Donald Trumps's America?
1 Paraphen 2018-04-22
So assuming that law enforcement is corrupt, then what do you suggest we do? Is your plan to post about it on the internet until somehow things change?
1 Hardinator 2018-04-22
If the state is so far gone that they can do as they please in the shadows then no amount of posting online is going to save us. But no, I believe your line of thinking is incorrect. Can we "trust the state"? Well, a lot of people don't think so, but I feel your question is an attempt at a "gotcha!".
I don't trust a lot politicians. I believe they are either in it for their own personal gain or for the gain of those who ply them with the most money. I don't always believe they are focusing on their job like they should be to write proper laws.
But I don't think they are under the thumb of some shadowy cabal. There is still recourse, accountability, and a lot of people who are trying to do what is best for this country. It isn't perfect but if we stop trying to fight each other on bullshit then we can get together and move society forward again.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
I don't mean the question as a gotcha, I mean it honestly. I think there are many well-meaning people working for the government, and many of them also do good work, yet it is the good things our government does for us that keeps us from fully rejecting the bad. Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security keep a majority of the voting population dependent on the state, and therefore less willing to oppose the horrible things our government has done and is doing in our name.
I doubt myself that there exists a single shadowy cabal. I wouldn't be completely shocked if there were, but I wouldn't put money on it. I don't think that question really matters. What matters is that our governments do not represent us; they represent the corporations and the ultra-rich. By supporting the good parts of government, we enable the worst parts as well. We don't trust each other, but we'll trust the people who've swindled us for generations.
1 Hardinator 2018-04-22
I agree with that first part at least mostly, but not the second.
I think that enough people in the government are only in for their own gain. That muddies the water enough to let them get away with it and keep a population divided against fixing it. So not all politicians, but at least some are treasonous at worst, incompetent and/or greedy at best.
As for those social programs, I don't think those programs create dependence, and not for a majority of people. Not anymore than you are dependent on your job and healthcare from said job. There are people dependent on those programs. But suddenly ripping the rug out from those people isn't going to solve any problems. Those programs were put in place to solve some serious concerns, concerns we no longer think about in the modern day. Kind of like how the polio vaccine made it so we don't know anything about the dangers of polio.
1 Ayzmo 2018-04-22
You charge them with a crime and convict them using evidence.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
I do think we need to distinguish between attacking people one is engaged in discussion with, and attacking people who are the subject of the conspiracy theorists being discussed.
I think the first is rarely if ever productive, while the second is can be relevant to the conversation. I would agree that any comment that just asserts as fact that HRC and or the Podestas are guilty of X, Y, or Z without providing evidence or argumentation is superfluous and useless to a productive discussion.
1 yellowsnow2 2018-04-22
I see the Roman Catholic Church as just an old form of government. They were the official authority on morality, science, social norms, and religion. But they were the authority. Today we have a different authority acting the same way.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
I agree. I would go perhaps further to say that the state is the same as religion. Statism is a religion.
1 Flytape 2018-04-22
When the Roman empire fell apart the only real authority that continued to exist for a long time was the church. They were the educated, the organized, and their wealth was kept separate from the empires so it was still somewhat solvent after the collapse.
This is probably the point at which the church went completely off the rails. Being the government kind of fell in their lap and suddenly POWER!, BOOM and people lose their damn minds.
1 politicalconspiracie 2018-04-22
Is criticizing a specific conspiracy theory hate speech?
1 YourselfonaShelf 2018-04-22
Dunno. Is it hate speech to call out particular religions for heinous circumcision rituals?
1 politicalconspiracie 2018-04-22
No. I don’t consider it as so.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
Absolutely not, even if one accepts the notion of hate speech as being legitimate. Criticizing a theory is criticizing an idea, not a person.
1 politicalconspiracie 2018-04-22
What about criticizing a group of people who believe in a specific conspiracy?
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
Legally or ethically?
Legally, I would say that if it is illegal to do something to a group who believe a specific form of religion, than it should be illegal to do that same thing to a group who believe in a specific conspiracy.
Ethically, I think as always, that we should criticize beliefs and actions but not people, and we should never criticize a person for beliefs which they are associated with but do not support themselves.
1 politicalconspiracie 2018-04-22
I was meaning ethically.
And I agree with your second paragraph. We should be criticizing ideas and not attacking other people.
I’ve had a few people attack me on a personal level because I talk about conspiracies that are negative towards Trump, Republicans, or Russia.
Do you believe that moderator actions should be taken against people who attack people like me on a personal level instead of just attacking the arguments?
And for the record, I have no problem with people attacking my arguments or disagreeing with me. It’s when I see people who attack me on a personal level and get away with it, that bothers me.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
I do, and I think all personal attacks should be prohibited in the main discussion threads on this sub.
1 politicalconspiracie 2018-04-22
Agreed. Thank you for replying back to me about this.
1 theawesomethatis 2018-04-22
Everything i don't like is hate speech and should be killed!
Everything i do like is a human right and YOU should pay for it.
You have gone full libtard.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
You're not understanding my argument.
I disagree with the concept of hate speech as a legitimate legal construct. Yet if statists want to claim it is a valid construct, and if they subject me to its prohibitions, I want those same protections for myself which are given to others.
1 DonBB 2018-04-22
You have all the same protections that are given to others. It sounds like you think you are entitled to special rights
1 YourselfonaShelf 2018-04-22
What groups are entitled to "special rights"?
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
I do not. If someone physically assaults a person because that person is a Christian and that intention is determined by the court, the assailant will be charged and convicted with a hate crime. If I am physically assaulted because I am a conspiracy theorist, even if that intention can be determined, my assailant will not be charged or convicted with a hate crime.
I do not have equal protection under the law.
1 DonBB 2018-04-22
If someone attacks you for your religious beliefs, you are equally protected. You have the same exact rights as the person in your scenario...you just believe you are entitled to extra rights
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
You're saying there's a DA in this country that will file hate crime charges against a person who assaults someone because they're a conspiracy theorist? Because if a DA won't do that for me in a situation where they would press hate crimes charges because a victim is a certain religion, than I do not have equal protection under the law.
1 DonBB 2018-04-22
Right. So you are saying you believe you are entitled to extra rights beyond what everyone else (yourself included) already have.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
The idea of protected classes is that a division among the populace can be identified, and that each class created by such a division has guaranteed protections from the law. For example, gender divides male from female, so a female cannot receive different treatment under the law from a male. With a religion, a Muslim cannot receive different treatment than a non-Muslim.
My contention is that being a conspiracy theorist (meaning, agreeing with some or all elements of a set of related beliefs about the nature of reality, i.e. a religion) should but does not currently receive the same protections as identifying as one of the state-sanctioned forms of religion. My contention is that all people deserve such protections for any set of beliefs that religious people receive for their beliefs.
1 chuck_94 2018-04-22
See but this is terrible logic because of the rabbit hole it opens
“If someone attacks me for wearing Nike and they’re wearing adidas it should be a hate crime”
“If someone attacks me for having brown eyes and theirs are blue it should be a hate crime”
“If someone attacks me for eating Chinese food even though they like Italian it should be a hate crime”
“If someone attacks me because I’m a golfer but they play basketball it should be a hate crime’
You’re asking for a very slippery slope. I know your thought process might be something along “well we’ve already started that slope with hate crimes in the first place” but I’d assume most of this sub is of the opinion of “well let’s stop that fucking slope with a barrier of boulders instead of digging out the mountain to make the slope steeper”
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
This post and my discussions in it have a couple of separate aims, and one of my key ones is to satirize the concept of hate crimes, which as you correctly point out, if taken to their natural conclusion leads to all sorts of absurdities.
I agree. I'm pointing out how steep that slope already is so that hopefully some people will see how bad of an idea hate crimes are.
1 chuck_94 2018-04-22
Well I can respect that. I’ll be honest I had a hunch that your post was mostly satire but I wasn’t sure. Throw me a /s next time so I know lol!
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
/s is for sarcasm. I'm not being sarcastic; I'm being satirical, and there is a difference. I'm using the natural conclusion of the argument for hate crimes to highlight absurdity of the notion.
But at the same time, I am making a serious argument as well. I believe that if we are to live under a coercive state, that state's laws must provide equal protection for all people, and they currently do not.
1 chuck_94 2018-04-22
Well fair enough. While I’ve been on reddit a few months I’m still catching up on the jargon so I thought that /s was used for sarcasm and satire equally really. And depending on the context and how the statement is made they could easily be considered synonyms but that’s really irrelevant.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
In practice, it is, and I'd agree that the two can be synonymous in some contexts. I see "/s" as indicating a certain flippant nature to a comment or post, and it was not my intention at all to be flippant. I am sincere about what I'm saying here.
The feeling is certainly mutual. Good evening to you as well :)
1 chuck_94 2018-04-22
See but this is terrible logic because of the rabbit hole it opens
“If someone attacks me for wearing Nike and they’re wearing adidas it should be a hate crime”
“If someone attacks me for having brown eyes and theirs are blue it should be a hate crime”
“If someone attacks me for eating Chinese food even though they like Italian it should be a hate crime”
“If someone attacks me because I’m a golfer but they play basketball it should be a hate crime’
You’re asking for a very slippery slope. I know your thought process might be something along “well we’ve already started that slope with hate crimes in the first place” but I’d assume most of this sub is of the opinion of “well let’s stop that fucking slope with a barrier of boulders instead of digging out the mountain to make the slope steeper”
1 HibikiSS 2018-04-22
Very good post. Yeah, if the people in the other groups had some decent arguments to hate us it would at least be somewhat justified, but people mostly do it out of herd behavior.
1 TotesMessenger 2018-04-22
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 Flytape 2018-04-22
I totally understand what you're getting at and "Conspiracy theorists" as an example of it is easily interchangeable with hundreds of other groups.
It's like the concept that "black people can't be racists" it's easily seen as a double standard. It stands out because racism is such a central issue in Western society.
If you're going to have a law about hate speech then it has to be general and can not be specific where some groups are codified as protected thus the law easily applies in protecting them while other groups are not mentioned specifically and are thus left vulnerable.
It creates a flow gradient of hate directed at the remaining groups of non protected classes. Otherwise the free market of hate would more fairly distribute the hate to where it is needed most. J/K
It does create a flow gradient though.
1 Out-Of-Context-Bot 2018-04-22
Jesus also has a goal and an assist, combined 1 bonus at best lol
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
I get that you're being tongue in cheek about fairly distributing hate, but you do raise a good point. There is a flow gradient created by the unequal application of the law. If some people have more protections than others, than those without the protections are less than equal under the law.
I say we get rid of all hate crimes laws, but if we have them, I demand equal protection under them.
1 Flytape 2018-04-22
The free market of hate.
1 gnatty_dread 2018-04-22
There should government mandates ensuring some percentage of all employees be conspiracy theorists
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
Now your talking! I don't see why not. If there can be quotas to ensure representation along the lines of religion, there should be quotas for conspiracy theorists as well.
1 smoking_JayCutler6 2018-04-22
What quotas exist for religion
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
I don't think any do, in the US at least. India has some quotas that kind of tie into religion, but are more formally expressed as ethnic quotas.
I do hesitate to compare conspiracy theorists as a class to race, sex, or sexual orientation, because those are essentially unchosen classes. But religion and conspiracy theorism are functionally the same in that they are chosen belief sets, and I do think we should have all the protections that the religious do.
1 Jaxraged 2018-04-22
You want to be tax exempt or what? Cause I don’t know what rights you’re missing out on. You don’t have a right to not be called a moron.
1 Veritas__Aequitas 2018-04-22
As you point out, the Catholic church did not offer protection to those deemed heretics. They murdered those people in their auto-da-fes. Religious protections enjoyed by Protestants in France known as the Edict of Nance where revoked by the Jesuits via their blackmail of Louis XIV.
Eventually when magisterial Protestantism gained footing, the Jesuits waged the Thirty Years War against the Protestants, and lost!
A collective is the only way to combat an enemy collective. Simply appealing to the enemy to offer you protections does not work.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
I would agree, only I would say that replacing one coercive state (as the RCC certainly was for a time) with another is not a long-term solution.
1 Veritas__Aequitas 2018-04-22
There is no such thing as a non-coercive state. Discrimination is a mechanism of all civilizations.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
I didn't downvote you, and now I've upvoted you. I don't downvote anyone in my own threads. We've been linked to by another sub which shall not be named.
Agreed.
Agreed again, but I don't believe that a state of any kind is necessary. I believe humans can live and will prosper if we do away with the notion that we need a state to protect us from ourselves.
1 Veritas__Aequitas 2018-04-22
Ah, that explains it.
That is called barbarism. Human beings ascended from this primitive condition by establishing collectives, which as we agreed, are always discriminatory.
Moreover, besides being a nirvana fallacy, the problem with that, is it allows enemies to conquer you.
1 nuclearsprout 2018-04-22
That got me thinking... to further cement our protection as persecuted minority we should start a religious movement the highest value of which is radical skepticism and freedom of thought and expression. I mean hey, some guys get away with genital mutilation and pedophile blood rituals in the year 2018 and have these protected as a religious right. Really makes ya thonk.
1 astrobearman 2018-04-22
Fucking ridiculous.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
Any specific points of disagreement?
1 RMFN 2018-04-22
Nice argument.
1 JamesColesPardon 2018-04-22
Pack it up guys this thread is OVER.
1 gaslightlinux 2018-04-22
Critical theory?
1 RMFN 2018-04-22
Never heard of that particular conspiracy theory?
1 gaslightlinux 2018-04-22
No ...
1 ToxicWebsite 2018-04-22
This should not, I repeat, not be one of the most 'controversial' posts of the day in the Goddamn -Conspiracy- sub. This is either evidence of heavy brigading (looking at you TMOR. you guys should not downvote in a sub of which the target audience you're not a part of) or of habit of violating the rediquette on the part of the regulars. You should downvote posts that are useless or are spam, not the ones you disagree with. You guys who are doing it are stupid (or, at best, violate reddiquette).
Hey OP, I agree with you. Like one Youtube comment said, "They made up a term 'conspiracy theorist' [in the time of JFK assassination]. The only 'conspiracy theory' is that you should trust the government."
On reddit everyone constantly regurgitates that one must deal with facts, not with emotions, but I want to say this, emotional thing to you, if I may. If you distrust both the government and the media, you feel safe, but if you distrust the government and trust the media, you don't.
On second thought, I'm wrong, we've got to have more censorship, we have to fight fake news, and we have to just kill everybody who disagrees while masking it as mass shootings. /s
Really though you make sure to enjoy your day.
1 The-B-sharps 2018-04-22
Oh stop you big baby
1 gaslightlinux 2018-04-22
lulz
1 Jaxraged 2018-04-22
Did someone call you a retard when you talked about flat earth? Sorry bud you’ll get used to it.
1 Zendm 2018-04-22
Hard to take this idea seriously when you constantly see conspiracy theorists attacking other people for who they are or what they believe in.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
"Hard to take this idea seriously when you constantly see Muslims attacking other people for who they are or what they believe in."
See what you did there? You're stereotyping an entire class of people, and applying a prejudice to all of us based on the actions of a few. I don't judge all Muslims, or all Christians, or all Jews for the worst actions of those who claim to belong to these groups, so why do you judge me for the worst actions done by self-proclaimed conspiracy theorists?
1 Zendm 2018-04-22
I'm judging the class as a whole because you want to protect the class as a whole.
You can't pick and choose. Either everyone in the class is protected, or no one is.
For the record, you're not bad at all. I've never seen you witch hunt, and you're far more professional than some of the other mods around here.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
But the class must be protected as a whole to protect the innocent within the class (I'm not calling myself innocent in any of this; that's not my argument.) This is the argument behind religious tolerance as well. It's why Western liberals oppose bigotry towards Muslims, because they rightly understand that a peaceful Muslim person should not be judged on the basis of the hateful acts also committed under the name of Muslim.
And just as I would join you in calling out any person who demeans someone else because of the religious beliefs of others in their class, or demeaning that class as a whole, I would ask you to join me in calling out those who demean individual conspiracy theorists because of the beliefs that other conspiracy theorists have, and call out those who demean the class as a whole.
Can you join me in this?
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
For me, this has nothing to do with conservatism or leftism, and if anything, I'd consider myself a left anarchist.
This is about two concepts: should "hate speech" or "hate crimes" be a legal concept, and if so, should the law be applied equally. The first question is about authoritarian vs. libertarian and has nothing to do with left or right, and the second is about equal protection under the law, which should be agreeable to every fair person, whether left or right, authoritarian or libertarian.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
I think you should read about or listen to more voices on what anarchism is and isn't about. It's about responsible adults make consensual decisions with each other as individuals or groups without the threat of coercive government.
Check out this James Corbett video about spontaneous order for more on the topic. Also, I'd check out agorism and voluntaryism on his website. Corbett has a wealth of good content on both, and I'd also check out other people's perspectives. Anarchism is not what you might think it is.
1 politicalconspiracie 2018-04-22
A black person hunting and killing specifically white people just because they are white shouldn’t be a hate crime?
1 Thy_Weapon_Of_War 2018-04-22
We already have laws against murder. A "hate crime" law requiring additional punishment is not needed. Furthermore, the principle of "hate crime" laws is wrong. People should not be punished for their thoughts or free speech. With a "hate crime", you are adding additional criminality and punishment for their beliefs or speech.
1 DonBB 2018-04-22
Unless it's kneeling during the national anthem.
1 DrWigglesMcGulicutty 2018-04-22
You would need to provide a real-life example of this. You jump from criticizing an idea to hate speech without explanation.
1 TakeDaBait 2018-04-22
I think it's funny that you compare conspiracy theorists to religious people lol.
1 Thy_Weapon_Of_War 2018-04-22
But there is still a law. You are calling it a "natural law". And I would agree that a form of "natural law" (loosely speaking) is the supreme law. I would identify that as the one true Law that comes from "God."
The point is that murder, stealing, and rape are always wrong. In other words, an absolute moral standard exists. A "law" is defined in this way -- an absolute standard governing morality or behavior.
1 smoking_JayCutler6 2018-04-22
What quotas exist for religion
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
You're saying there's a DA in this country that will file hate crime charges against a person who assaults someone because they're a conspiracy theorist? Because if a DA won't do that for me in a situation where they would press hate crimes charges because a victim is a certain religion, than I do not have equal protection under the law.
1 Thy_Weapon_Of_War 2018-04-22
It's still punishing people for their beliefs/speech. Sure, it would also be "effective" to pass hate crime laws and start punishing "racists" for their "hate speech". The problem is that it's unconstitutional, because it criminalizes beliefs/speech.
1 CelineHagbard 2018-04-22
Prove to me that Christianity is a legitimate religion.
1 Hardinator 2018-04-22
You? Nothing, you are some nobody on the internet. We have law enforcement for that.
1 nuttin_butt_love 2018-04-22
How do you propose we scale this concept to apply to a country of hundreds of millions of people?
1 Ayzmo 2018-04-22
You charge them with a crime and convict them using evidence.