dialamah

What would you consider hate speech?

Freedom of speech means that if you criticize government, they don't fine you or imprison you. It also means the Government can't penalize you for anything you say or post, unless it is incitement to violence or hate speech. Private companies, like Global, have no obligation to accept what you, or anyone else, posts on their site. They have the right to reject what you say, just as you have to say it.

Why should hate speech be allowed? It leads to violence, too. In any case, Canada's legal system penalizes hate speech, as well as hate crimes. What would you consider hate speech? Any examples?

Than why am I being criticized for saying that unfettered speech - that which promotes hate and violence (and misinformation) - should be curtailed?

It's great news that there is an effective treatment against Covid. Given that anti-vaxers are so concerned about the side effects of the Covid Vaccine, I wondered about the side effects of Monoclonal antibodies. For those who worry about side effects, Monoclonal antibodies are not risk free - the excerpt below is from a handout given to patients before they're given the monoclonal treatment: ASIRIVIMAB AND IMDEVIMAB? Possible side effects of casirivimab and imdevimab are: • Allergic reactions. Allergic reactions can happen during and after infusion with casirivimab and imdevimab. Tell your healthcare provider or nurse, or get medical help right away if you get any of the following signs and symptoms of allergic reactions: fever, chills, low blood pressure, changes in your heartbeat, shortness of breath, wheezing, swelling of your lips, face, or throat, rash including hives, itching, headache, nausea, vomiting, sweating, muscle aches, dizziness and shivering. The side effects of getting any medicine by vein may include brief pain, bleeding, bruising of the skin, soreness, swelling, and possible infection at the infusion site. These are not all the possible side effects of casirivimab and imdevimab. Not a lot of people have been given casirivimab and imdevimab. Serious and unexpected side effects may happen. Casirivimab and imdevimab are still being studied so it is possible that all of the risks are not known at this time. It is possible that casirivimab and imdevimab could interfere with your body's own ability to fight off a future infection of SARS-CoV-2. Similarly, casirivimab and imdevimab may reduce your body’s immune response to a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2. Specific studies have not been conducted to address these possible risks. Talk to your healthcare provider if you have any questions. People have even died from monoclonal antibody therapy, although it's extremely rate - just as dying from a Covid vaccine is extremely rare. And while this therapy can reduce death and hospitalizations, it doesn't prevent them - people can still die from Covid, even if they get this therapy - according to one study, it reduces death by 6 people per 100. The trial found that 24% of the people who received the experimental antibody treatment died, versus 30% in the group that did not. In a press release, RECOVERY trial investigators said this translates to six fewer deaths for every 100 people treated with the experimental drug. Conversely, the chance of dying from Covid after getting the vaccine is far less than 1 in 100. The data, gathered from December 8, 2020, through July 4, 2021, show that of more than 1.2 million adults who received a first dose, fewer than 0.5% reported contracting breakthrough infections two weeks or more after getting the jab. Among those who got both shots, fewer than 0.2% experienced a breakthrough infection a week or more after getting their second shot. It astounds me that people who object to a vaccine because it is already known to have side effects, may have unknown side effects and isn't 100% effective and makes money for "Big Pharma" embrace a treatment that has the same disadvantages, is less effective in preventing deaths and makes "Big Pharma" even more money. Personally, I'm glad we have two effective tools to fight Covid: a vaccine to help prevent the disease and get us away from masks, social distancing and lockdowns, along with a treatment for those who get sick - whether because they cannot be vaccinated or the vaccination failed for them.

So, a KKK rally, hidden in the backwoods of Arkansas, planning the elimination of non-Christians and Liberals is ok with you? Because that's happening. How about a guy - casually swinging a golf club as he grins at a brown family coming to visit their parents/grandparents? Or calling a neighbor a 'terrorist' and feigning shooting a gun at him? Or using his vehicle to push walkers off the road because they happen to be friends with brown neighbors? You ok with that, too? Because it happened in my neighborhood - and it was terrifying for everyone he targeted. Ask yourself - without poisonous speech, how would people get to the point of planning or attempting to kill others, or feeling so entitled by their belief of superiority that terrorizing others is their daily pastime? Anyone who thinks unfettered speech is a good idea does not understand how humans work: speech leads to action. Hateful/violent speech leads to hateful/violent action. And, before you accuse me of wanting to shut down anything I don't agree with - you're wrong. People on this forum and elsewhere say plenty I disagree with and I don't want to shut them down. What I would shut down is the hateful stuff that dehumanizes entire groups of people, speech that emboldens people to shoot doctors outside of abortion clinics, or shoot down Muslims in a Mosque, or kill black worshippers in a Church. And just because most people wouldn't do those sorts of thing doesn't mean what they say or the messages they put out doesn't influence what the fringe element would do.

Where were you? Complaining about masks and lockdowns, as I recall, two things that demonstrably reduced the spread of Covid. Now you complain about vaccines, hmmm. Are you in the pay of those Chinese lab workers who unleashed this virus into the world? Cause you seem absolutely determined that as many people die from it as possible.

How long has Quebec had people of faith wearing religious symbols? Yet only when Muslims became targets of xenophobes did the government decide to pass a law that restricts everyone's freedom to practice their faith. Such a law would never have been considered if not for anti-Muslim sentiment. In that sense, the law targeted Muslims; it's too bad so many others have to also pay a price. Muslims condemn attacks against Christians and Christian churches all the time. I would say that in Muslim countries, Christians are generally treated about as well as Muslims are treated in Western countries. That is, looked down on as foreign, treated with contempt by a certain segment of the population, verbally and physically attacked by others - things like that. BTW, Egypt has two legal systems - one for Muslims and one for Coptic Christians, each in line with their respective faiths. There are a few other Islamic countries that do the same. Egypt also allows holidays for Christian holy days; Coptics get those days off work, but Muslims do not.

1. I agree, sending them back is nonsense, but I have heard it proposed by extremists. 2. Looks like we agree here, too, more or less. While most of us are born with either male or female characteristics, I don't think people are simply male or female. I think our gender is on a continuum, with hormones determining how male or female we look, think and behave. Hormones are pretty powerful so it doesn't really surprise me that sometimes the hormones we produce do not match the sexual characteristics we were born with. 3. Yeah, extremists on both sides are a problem. Amazing, a leftie and a rightie agreeing.

Pfft. I'm assuming you are heterosexual. Please, go out and be homosexual - give up your heterosexuality, like a smoking habit. Do it just for a month; you don't even have to make it a lifetime commitment.

Well, there was a time when I'd have agreed that even bad ideas should be expressed, so that good ideas can flourish. Problem is, I don't see that happening. People simply get more entrenched in their ideas, good or bad, and as we see become more polarized. Do you think polarization is good for society? The States has very recently had an attempted insurrection due to that kind of polarization. My opinion is that there has to be limits on people being able to say or promote anything they want. Just as people can't deliberately sell poison while claiming it's a cure-all, so speech can't spew poison while claiming it's a boon to society.

It's pretty hard to "subjugate" someone's sexuality. If it were possible, Christians/Muslims and other religions would have had homosexuality stamped out centuries ago. Just as you can't stop yourself from finding the opposite gender sexually attractive whether you act on it or not, so gay people can't stop themselves from finding the same sex sexually attractive, whether they act on it or not. Transsexuals usually know there's something 'different' about them from the time they're 4 or 5. Most kids that age aren't being "subjugated" by anyone but their parents. Kids pick up at a pretty young age what is 'appropriate' for their assumed gender and will try to conform, even if it feels completely wrong for them. Imagine if your child did not fall into these sexual norms; they'd know how strongly you disapprove of people not conforming, so you'd likely lose your kid - and you might not ever know why.

If the Covid virus is the reason you have fluid on your lungs, and that causes lack of oxygen which shuts down your liver, kidneys, brain and heart, it's pretty clear that your heart disease, diabetes, obesity, leukemia, cancer etc killed you. Only young, healthy individuals with no health issues could die of Covid. Luckily, I have hypothyroidism which will prevent me from dying from Covid. On its own, hyperthyroidism won't kill me, unless I stopped taking my meds for some extended period of time, as in years. But it's certainly reassuring to know that if I die while having Covid, it would be my hyperthyroidism that killed me.

What if the claim of victimhood is legit? Consider the law in Quebec, implemented specifically for Muslims (though hidden in the language) forbidding the wearing of religious wear in government facilities? Or the verbal and sometimes physical harassment of Muslims just going about their every day lives? Or the attacks on Muslim places of worship? LGBTQ face similar problems, as do Jews. Why do you insist that these aren't to be acknowledged or changed?

I'm going to guess what the answer will (or would be): 1. Send all Muslims back from whence they came; if born here, send them to their parent's/grandparent's/great grandparent's home land. 2. Forbid LGBTQ from ever pointing out the social (and sometimes systemic) disadvantages under which they live and disallow any effort by them to request any kind of recognition by government or society; disallow any trans-sexual surgery; continue to insist that everyone is either male or female, ignoring historical and current evidence to the contrary. Added for good measure: 3. If anyone should criticize the dominant culture, they must be cancelled immediately.

I grew up in a small, rural and still pretty conservative area - as in they primarily vote conservative and in the last election, voted in another conservative. Yet, on social issues they are mostly left-leaning and we agree more than we disagree; it's really only on fiscal management that I would call them conservative and even then we're not that far apart. Right-leaning people on this forum sound like the people in my hometown, on steroids. The hatred expressed here for 'lefties' isn't found among the conservatives in my family or their community at large; their attitude seems to be that we have different political ideas and while mine are pretty stupid, I'm not an evil person who deserves to be drawn and quartered. My partner often listens to right-wing radio stations and rants about how the world as we know it is being destroyed by things like immigration, Canada's debt, children being forced to change gender and other right-wing complaints though he hasn't gotten to "woke" people yet. Yet, he consistently votes NDP because at heart he believes that people deserve respect and equality, and that government shouldn't be swayed by Big Business lobbyists; he doesn't see either Conservatives or Liberals actually supporting what he believes is important, so he votes NDP because they do promise those things, are untried and might be better than our current choices. The point being that your relatives are not much different than the rest of Canadians - it's you that sees them as being part of the 'enemy'. Partisans on both sides demonize the other. Demonizing means that lies must be told about the other side in order to make them seem more unreasonable than they really are, and insist that the other ideology will destroy our culture and society. Both are equally wrong, imo. (I've also made that mistake, and must remind myself that we're not that different, and that it's wrong to paint all conservatives as unreasonable based on what I see on this forum.)

Nah, I'd rather keep all my brain cells healthy and functioning, thanks.

Also, if people who've had the vaccine die, then it's a vaccine death. Clearly, getting Covid is a much safer option than getting the vaccine when you count properly.

Yet, you support a law in which the mother should die along with her child, just so that an abortion doesn't happen under any circumstances. Your words are hollow.

Anti-vaxers can make the choice to not get a vaccine, if they want to. But there are consequences to that choice - like a higher chance of getting sick, ending up in the hospital, dying, not being able to enter certain places. There are also consequences to abortion, even if the government isn't trying to force their views on women. There are also consequences to birthing a baby; why should government force those consequences on women? My opinion about when a foetus is a baby is irrelevant; viability seems like a reasonable cut-off to me. And in fact It's very rare for a baby past viability to be aborted unless there are serious health issues. The constant refrain heard from anti-abortion people that women just "kill babies even at term" is complete bullshit, used to stir up emotion instead of thought. Lying so they can force both men and women to have children they didn't intend and don't want. Men who don't want children are only too happy to support their child being aborted, even if they publicly denounce abortion. They'll encourage, financially support and even coerce abortion, including by physical abuse. Your "man card" doesn't give you a pass to pretend men have nothing to do with whether or not a woman gets an abortion.

Unless it's the right to access abortion that is "infringed" on by creating bounty hunters in the neighborhood, paid $10,000 for each individual or organization they turn in.

Misogynistic people have an overwhelming need for controlling women, limiting their freedoms and punishing them for being sexually active. Misogyny is behind these abortion-limiting laws, not concern for unborn babies. If life were truly sacrosanct to the anti-abortion misogynists, they'd offer support to single women and their children and insist that men take control of their own birth control and face punishment if they do not. Their attitude would not be that women are responsible for birth control because "they have more to lose", or that if she can't afford kids, she shouldn't have them because it's not the taxpayers job to support her kid. This is especially true if the pregnancy is due to rape or incest. Anyone who supports this law is a misogynistic AH.

Access to abortion is a right conferred through Roe vs. Wade. The Texas law is an end run around it. If it goes to Supreme Court and they overturn it, that right will be removed. Note the word Amendment in "Second Amendment"; that means it was a change from the Constitution as it was originally crafted. With political will, it could be changed again. Same applies to Freedom of Religion; would it be acceptable for atheists to be paid $10,000 to sue Churches and ministers so that worshippers couldn't attend? This law undermines the safety of the freedoms and rights of all Americans; if it'll succeed to overturn the right to access to abortion, similar laws will succeed for other rights as well.

If you think the difference between 6 weeks pregnant and 24 weeks pregnant is a "minor difference", you are dumb as a post about pregnancy. How would you react if California enacted a law in which private citizens could sue gun providers for selling guns, and receive $10,000 plus legal fees from the government? What if the law specifically eliminated any way a gun provider could defend itself against such a suit? That is what the law in Texas has done to eliminate abortion. I hope all the men who whine about child support because women have "options" understand that they'll be paying a lot more child support if this law stands.

Could be. But how do you tell per individual? I've a friend who's parents both say they'd prefer the year in isolation over taking the risk of Covid. Should my mother have the freedom to infect my friend's parents because she's of the mind that a year of fun is worth the risk of an early death? I do believe suicide and overdose deaths have gone up; there's no easy answer to this. It's pretty clear that staying home/isolating reduces deaths from Covid, and also true that those things can increase risk of suicide and overdose. I don't know what the numbers are pre-pandemic or what they'll be post pandemic; maybe we have made a choice to save some lives over others. But is it really a choice? People who are sick with Covid show up at the doctor's offices and the hospitals, needing care, wanting to be cured. Suicidal people tend not to, and many hide their depression. Drug users also tend to hide their drug use, and seek isolation (or at least like-minded people) in order to do drugs. It may be that saving people from Covid is only a thing because the other groups are less visible. It's also true that a lot of people would have isolated themselves, even without mandates. That was the approach Sweden took and voluntary compliance with stay-at-home recommendations was fairly high. I couldn't find numbers on suicides in Sweden, but this paper suggests that the psychological effect was the same as other countries, even without mandates; the natural conclusion is that people coped with increased drug use and suicide. Still, it may be time will show that Sweden's approach kept suicide/overdose deaths comparable to pre-pandemic levels, even though it cost more in terms of Covid deaths. It's interesting to me that people who've never concerned themselves with drug overdoses are suddenly using them to argue against policies they happen to dislike today. Heck, some of them would have even said - pre-pandemic - that drug addicts "choose" that lifestyle, so what if they overdose? It's just one less druggie to take up health and police resources that could be better used elsewhere. But now they are useful to an agenda, so 'concern' is on the table. I imagine it'll disappear soon enough after the pandemic.