Sure a Republican had something to do with it, Mike. You presented it, and you defended it, and you are still trying to act as though it was a bland nothing.
Since you are not a mind-reader, your ability to understand what goes on inside my head is about as good as your training. Where did you train, by the way? Every time you try that mind-reading trick on me, I've been meaning to ask. Leno and Letterman and company seem to leave me out of their jibes pretty well. They don't seem to get touchy about me not enjoying being the butt of anti-semitic remarks that I've noticed, nor do they accuse me of faking my reaction to them. Their jokes, you may notice, cut both directions, as I make an effort to have my own do.
It's not the first time folks try to call people overly sensitive for objecting to anti-semitic remarks. Won't be the last. I gave you a good enough accounting of exactly what I meant. Your ability to reciprocate seems to be somewhat vestigial, and I see no reason to confide further in you about this sort of personal information until you've shown your ability for some authentic reciprocity. I know you have it; I've seen it before.
If you want to have this conversation as a conversation, I'm happy to comply, but I'm certainly not interested in being the butt of a series of attacks this way.
Bob, would you make up your mind? You call things not hate speech by it's definition and then show how the same things can be hate speech due to some scenarios you create.
There you have the issue, Mike.
You see, I'm not a lawyer.
Far as I'm concerned, It's not about me making up my mind. I think there's a line in the New Testament someplace that has Jesus saying something on the order of God created The Sabbath for man, not man for The Sabbath. It's one of the many smart things he said. Rules are supposed to help people, as a general principle, not people help the rules.
The way you use the information I give you about Hate Speech, suggests that we are here to serve the absolute rules about Hate Speech or the absolute rules about anything. It appears you want me to lay down a lawmaker's statute around which you can catch me up in contradictions, in the same way that I've quoted, above. I'm not offering you laws. I'm neither a legislator nor a lawyer. Sorry about that.
In Jewish Law, there are many many laws about not being allowed to do work on the Sabbath. You're not allowed to cook or clean. You're not allowed to drive. You're not allowed to walk outside of unblessed areas. You're not allowed to turn a light on or off.
But if somebody is in danger, no matter what, you are obligated to put everything aside and go to help.
Yes, it's a contradiction. You probably could make a case for letting somebody or something die, but you'd be wrong, and that's a pretty solid principle in Jewish law. Life tends to be over overriding importance. It's a contradiction you simply have to live with, even the most rigid of folks have to deal with that contradiction, and there are all sorts of ways people have to explain why it's not a contradiction. Some of them might even be valid. But the reality is that there are contradictions that you just have to live with, like being angry with people you love, or loving people you don't always like.
I suspect that Hate Speech is like that.
I suspect that it's probably a lot like pornography and obscenity. Who was the Supreme Court Justice who came up with the comment about obscenity, "I can't define it, but I know it when I hear it."
Well, I took a shot at defining Hate Speech, and I think I did a pretty decent job of it. I know it when I hear it. Clearly you disagree about what it is; and since you seem to disagree, it's time for you to stick your neck out, Mike, and give it a shot. And good luck to you. Maybe the two of us can do a better job together than I can alone.