The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

We need more people like Katie Hopkins

Scroll to see replies

Original post by BaconandSauce
I'm not the one who randomly picked a internet page to define hate speech but yes I do tend to read forums from the start hence me replying to your first post where you posted your made up definition

but if you react this badly to being corrected on a forum you must be a joy to educate.


Well you should have read all my posts.

Well i'm more educated you, considering you went the Open University.

Original post by BaconandSauce
Just reading and replying to your posts in the order you posted them (that's the way forums tend to work)

Perhaps a little consideration and thought in your posts and you wouldn't have to correct yourself so much

or get tetchy when others do it for you.


You genuinely are an idiot aren't you? Here you are agreeing with me and you still want an argument. I didn't make any mistakes here, i said the law defines hate speech.

You keep quoting me with such stupidity, dont bother to do it for the last word.
Original post by darkvibes
Well you should have read all my posts.



Yes one after another

I replied to the first one as it was so incorrect it needed to be challenged

Not my fault but you are better off not telling people how to behave on a forum to cover your own ineptitude

the rest of your post is simply an attack as I had the nerve to show you how VERY wrong you were (initially)

Now the grown ups want to talk so please don't bother to reply to me again.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by BaconandSauce
Yes one after another

I replied to the first one as it was so incorrect it needed to be challenged

Not my fault but you are better off not telling people how to behave on a forum to cover your own ineptitude


If that were the case how did you not see where i wrote about there having to be an intent to offend for it to be hate speech?

The mistake here is solely on you part.
Original post by darkvibes
If that were the case how did you not see where i wrote about there having to be an intent to offend for it to be hate speech?

The mistake here is solely on you part.


I quoted your post in full

(Original post by darkvibes)
Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.

The proper definition Tell me in this post where you wrote 'about there having to be an intent to offend for it to be hate speech'

Your 'proper' definition is no such thing and now you're acting like a 5 year old when you have been corrected
Original post by BaconandSauce
I quoted your post in full

(Original post by darkvibes)
Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.

The proper definition Tell me in this post where you wrote 'about there having to be an intent to offend for it to be hate speech'

Your 'proper' definition is no such thing and now you're acting like a 5 year old when you have been corrected


Ignorance is truly bliss.

Incredible, you just completely ignored all my posts. This stupidity is perhaps why you ended up at Open university.
Original post by darkvibes
Ignorance is truly bliss.

Incredible, you just completely ignored all my posts. This stupidity is perhaps why you ended up at Open university.


So you can't show me then where you said and I quote

'about there having to be an intent to offend for it to be hate speech?' in that post

In the world of us grown ups we tend to accept our mistakes and not act like brats when shown to be wrong (as you have in this case).

Oh and FYI I'm with the open UNI as I'm doing a PhD having already finished my Degree

Do let me know how your AS levels are going.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by BaconandSauce
So you can't show me then where you said and I quote

'about there having to be an intent to offend for it to be hate speech?' in that post

In the world of us grown up we tend to accept our mistakes and not act like spoilt brats when shown to be wrong (as you have in this case).

Oh and FYI I'm with the open UNI as I'm doing a PhD having already finished my Degree

Do let me know how your AS levels are going.


For the 4th time, you would have known it if you read ALL my posts. Which you didnt. And that is why you're wrong yet you try to put the blame on me for your own incompetence.

Oh please, calling that a degree is an insult. My GCSE grades are worth more than your 'degree'.
Original post by darkvibes
For the 4th time, you would have known it if you read ALL my posts. Which you didnt. And that is why you're wrong yet you try to put the blame on me for your own incompetence.

Oh please, calling that a degree is an insult. My GCSE grades are worth more than your 'degree'.


I'll leave it there as it seems you don't even know what a PhD is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorate

Enjoy the rest of your time at school and don't forget to be nice to teacher.
(edited 8 years ago)
Oh my lord could you two stop arguing?!
Original post by BaconandSauce
I'll leave it there as it seems you don't even know what a PhD is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorate

Enjoy the rest of your time at school and don't forget to be nice to teacher.


Yeah, you got it from the Open University.

nuff said.
Original post by iEthan
Oh my lord could you two stop arguing?!


Not my fault he's reacted badly to being corrected (but he did need to be corrected) :biggrin:
Original post by BaconandSauce
Not my fault he's reacted badly to being corrected (but he did need to be corrected) :biggrin:


OK but please, at least take it to PMs? It's exhausting to read
Original post by iEthan
OK but please, at least take it to PMs? It's exhausting to read


:biggrin: It's OK as I said I'll not bother to reply to him anymore
Can we please stop with the Ad Hominem attacks? :h:
Original post by Kvothe the arcane
Can we please stop with the Ad Hominem attacks? :h:


I'm just putting that fool in his place.
Just stop, oh my GOD
Original post by darkvibes
Hate speech is very different.


How is it different?

Original post by darkvibes
The law will decide what is hate speech.


A law is often up for interpretation (see any case that is before the Supreme Court of the United States), and may depend entirely on how an individual interprets it (e.g. personal bias). Therefore, no, it is not an objective solution.
Original post by Aceadria
How is it different?



Hate speech and free speech is very different.
Original post by Aceadria
A law is often up for interpretation (see any case that is before the Supreme Court of the United States), and may depend entirely on how an individual interprets it (e.g. personal bias). Therefore, no, it is not an objective solution.


Regardless, the law does decide it. One can't spread hate speech and justify it because it is subjective. A solution? idk, clearly it is difficult
Original post by darkvibes
Hate speech and free speech is very different.


You're repeating your previous statement. How is it different? Please, elaborate.


Original post by darkvibes
Regardless, the law does decide it. One can't spread hate speech and justify it because it is subjective. A solution? idk, clearly it is difficult


That's not the issue here. The point is that you're suggesting that limitations need to be placed on what can be said without suggesting how. Simply stating that 'the law will differentiate' without understanding the complexity of the judicial system just makes your premise fallacious.
Original post by Aceadria
You're repeating your previous statement. How is it different? Please, elaborate.



Hate speech encompasses things such as racial propaganda. It incites racial hatred etc etc
I've defined in previous posts. It essentially will have an adverse effect on others too.

Some would see it as an element of free speech, i see it as a restriction of free speech.
Original post by Aceadria
That's not the issue here. The point is that you're suggesting that limitations need to be placed on what can be said without suggesting how. Simply stating that 'the law will differentiate' without understanding the complexity of the judicial system just makes your premise fallacious.


It's impossible to monitor what everyone is saying. But yes, the way we can differentiate it is if it incites hatred or false propaganda. I'm not going to let anyone spread radical ideas, preach hate or express anti semitic views and let them get away with it in the name of free speech. There should be limitations to free speech, such that hate speech shouldnt be prohibited. How will we go about doing that? The law is one way, take someone to court is certainly a plausible suggestion.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you