Originally Posted by
Endus
No, this is just categorically false. This is the "evolution is just a theory, man" of arguments against hate speech. You not understanding the terminology is not an argument against it.
Edit: Specifically, for something to qualify as "hate speech", it typically needs to involve an incitement to violence against an identifiable group, or to threaten/harass/intimidate said group.
So, if we're going to talk about speech regarding a group of blue-skinned people, to make up an ethnicity that doesn't exist so nobody can get offended;
"I hate all those fucking blue people" isn't hate speech.
"You smurfs are ruining everything" isn't hate speech, even if "smurf" is a racial epithet in this case.
"We need to kill all those goddamned smurfs" is hate speech, due to incitement to violence/genocide.
"Smurfing smurfs smurfing the smurf out of all the smurfing smurf" isn't hate speech, despite the heavy use of "smurf".
"If I see any fucking bluefaces, I'm beating the shit out of them" is hate speech, speech meant to intimidate/harass.
And so on.
It isn't "insults". It isn't stuff that offends people. If that's what you think "hate speech" is, then you aren't paying attention to the actual laws and you're just reacting off either a complete willful ignorance of the legislation in question, where you refuse to actually look up those laws to inform yourself before spouting off, or you're listening to some propaganda mouthpiece that is outright lying to you.