You were talking about outlawing "discrimination" in an inter-personal context and I was trying to show that the goal posts are constantly being shifted and they are not always being based on facts. The society you are wishing for you would give law makers the mandate to determine what is acceptable public discourse which is obviously ridiculous because we've seen it go sideways many times. And I was also pointing out the hypocrisy of the people in this thread who would ignore a call to an authoritarian society but give thumbs down to someone with a different opinion.
The example is the current extreme progressive movement which is not based on facts but is supported by the law anyway. What happens when it gets to something you don't like? Would you be fine with them deciding what is "okay" then?
I personally believe hate speech laws are stupid and have already been abused. In SA the Human Rights Commission's official stance is that white-on-black racism is worse than black-on-white racism, and have sent people to prison for using a word that they deem unacceptable. It's become a dobbing institute which people run to when somebody "offends". Absolutely insane. You just can't entrust people with this kind of power because they inevitably stuff it up. We just can't trust bureaucrats to be a fair referees of public discourse.
This is why I admire the wisdom that went into the drafting of First Amendment of the US Constitution. It was truly ahead of it's time.
Everybody should just ignore Person 5.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my post; I kinda assumed it would be understandable in context.
When you say "Inter-Personal context" I'm guessing you are saying that because you believe homosexuality is a choice? We disagree there. It's also worth noting that your view on that point is not based on what you call "facts".
The "society I am wishing for" in many senses already exists. Things going "sideways" in completely different contexts, that only had in common speech but no other aspect, are kind of irrelevant here. And when doing something is bad for some people, and doing something else is bad for others, then someone has to draw a line somewhere.
I can understand wanting to make a distinction between speech and other acts, given the subjective nature of interpreting the impact of speech, and thanks for explaining that. I don't entirely agree though, just take away the subjectivity. As mentioned previously, someone has to draw a line, unless you consider speech not being an issue fundamentally, and not just because its' subjective - If you think speech should be free. because people should just "ignore" the speech. Well that's ignorant. And i don't mean that as an insult, I mean in terms of the original meaning of the word. Because words do harm, and people can't just ignore them. Why don't people who get physically assaulted just ignore teh pain? Let's be honest here, it's not even the physical nature of an assault that makes it bad, hence illigal. The damage is due to teh fear, teh loss of control, stealing of freedom. Who really gives two hoots about a bit of pain? If you fall off your bike it is hardly much of a problem. But if you get the same physical damage due to assault, that's far worse.
The only real difference, therefore, is the ability to objectively identify the crime. But what if you just make the law clear? As is done in several societies today.
Ask someone who has been teh subject of discrimination, homophobia or racism, for example, to "ignore" it. I'm sure they won't agree.
I can't pretend to know what it's like in South Africa, And racism against white people isn't OK, I agree with that, but actually racism against black people is worse. When your people have been discriminated against for years, and even excluded form society, robbed of their freedom, then when you are racially attacked (verbally or otherwise) you are likely to feel the weight of all that history, to have your hope for freedom destroyed.
