Should any mature and rational discussion about hate speech ...

[ColbertWatcher]

Poll question: Should any mature and rational discussion about hate speech ...

... include the actual language?

Ed Schultz was just discussing whether or not people should propagate the language of hate on the internet.

The conversation turned into a discussion about "repeating" what hate groups are saying.

Should any conversation about hate speech include the actual text?

[Toucano]

1. Context.

The words alone aren't hate.

The context makes it hate speech.

It can be helpful to have the actual text included.

[ColbertWatcher]

2. I added other for you. I hope you haven't voted yet. n/t

[pleah]

3. How could you have a rational discussion without the actual text?

Repeating it for the sake of repeating it is one thing but, don't you need to know what and how what was said to discuss it?

[ColbertWatcher]

6. I agree with you, but ...

... some consider any use of the language to be the same as the most extreme behavior associated with the worst people who spout the language.

Those people make no distinction between a violent mysogonist and David Letterman.

I just heard on the Hairballz repeat that Tawd Palin is shocked, shocked that Letterman wanted to rape his daughter. I guess it just goes to show how people like Von Brunn jumped so easily from hate speech to violence and maybe how close Tawd is to joining him.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. Yes. You put the offensive language in quotes. The person who uttered the language...

... is responsible for the language. Not the person who reports the utterance verbatim.

[TahitiNut]

5. "mature and rational discussion"??? Where??

:shrug:

[ColbertWatcher]

7. LOL! I was going to add "There is no mature and rational conversations on the web."

Nevertheless, I guess what I mean is a hypothetical "mature and rational discussion".

[TahitiNut]

8. When I was in grade school (1948-1961) propaganda and hate groups were well-covered.

Civics and history covered such topics quite well. I guess primary education has deteriorated quite a bit.

[ColbertWatcher]

9. There are some groups who believe any idea that suggests their dogma is ...

... infallible in any fashion is tantamount to "discrimination."

And they've been trying to indoctrinate schools in their warped ideas for a very long time.

[ColbertWatcher]

10. Morning kick. n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

13. Afternoon kick. n/t

[aikoaiko]

11. obviouly there should be no government censorhip of reporting, but

journalists may use discretion as they see fit which includes repeating the actual text.

Even if someone incited a riot, I would expect the language used to be accurately reported.

I cannot believe anyone would consider preventing the free flow of info in news.

[Obamanaut]

12. I even know what is meant when asterisks replace letters. Why

isn't that forbidden? "Sh*t", as an example, is not camouflaged all that well, not is "f*ck", so they should be completely written or completely avoided. IMO.