You have five seconds to explain why people should be allowed to post hateful comments online

You have five seconds to explain why people should be allowed to post hateful comments online.

Because.

They shouldn't be. Hate speech is unnecessary and uncivilized.

Hate is subjective and one persons freedom of speech doesn't end where another persons feelings begin.

kys

You first.

Define hate, you nigger.

That doesn't mean that legitimate journalists trying to educate the public should be compelled to share their microphone with bigots.

Twitter and Jewbook can ban whoever they want. I don't care. But if they do they need to be labeled as a monopoly and stripped of their intellectual property to make the Internet more competitive.

A bigot is defined as someone who is intolerant of other peoples opinions.

By suggesting that people with "the wrong opinion" shouldn't be allowed to speak is in itself a bigoted act.

its always left wing piles of shit like the NYTimes, Gaurdian, CNN that are against comments

gee...i wonder why

If you can't handle the bantz, you're the one with the problem.

Get over yourself.

It's not just Twitter and Facebook. Dozens of sites have decided the filth of the Internet no longer deserves a soapbox.

Even Reddit is making overtures to eliminate audience commentary, presumably due to the spread of /r/the_donald and the misogyny directed at Ellen Pao.

TROLLED TO DEATH

Man I'm glad i don't live where she does, I don't know if I could handle being physically forced to read the opinions of others

I mean, that must be what's going on, no sane person would repeatedly subject themselves to something they hate, right?

0/10

If your ideology cannot stand up to criticism then it is a weak ideology.

>comments (1349)
> Thursday 10 September 2015 12.30 BST
>This discussion is closed for comments.

just another clickbait article drawing people into commenting unlike me.

Dissent is sabotage and progress requires unity.

Because the ramifications of hateful online comments are far less threatening than the ramifications of a state run board determining what speech is acceptable and what speech is not.

Period.

Funny how GirlWritesWhat or ShoeOnHead, and many other female tubers don't bitch about that shit, ever.

Might it have somehing to do with them not being hateful rotten cunts? Hmmm..

pic unrelated, but it made me chuckle.

So everybody should march blindly toward death like sheep to the slaughterhouse.

Glad you're sharing your true feelings.

Hide troll threads.

whoever gets to decide what hatespeech looks like will necessarily have dictator-like powers

Utopianism is a londwinded way to hell.

To be fair, ShoeOnHead clearly enjoys bantz and being an asshole right back. She feeds on abusive comments.

>literally nobody gets hurt

are you happy now? no? well there's a shock.

>Now if feels as...
Female """Journalists."""

Hugboxes are bad, fgt. Freedom of speech is good. You can always click the X or not listen, you have that freedom and it can't be taken away. So why take away our freedom to speak?

Check out Olivia Nuzzi if you want a female journalist who isn't a whiny cunt. She's still pretty lefty, but she's a good resource if you want to keep up with their news without having to deal with 3rd wave feminist bullshit

>It's true, I could just stop reading comments. But I shouldn't have to.
It's true. I could stop posting comments that prove you wrong and piss you off. But I shouldn't have to.

>She feeds on abusive comments.
More like she likes flinging them.

The internet will make shitposting equals of us all

Why would I go looking for a female journalist? How about I just go looking for journalists based on skill and objectivity?

>Which, admittedly, might never be a woman.

This isn't 1984.

Because they write about different subject material than the male journalists do. Or, at least write about the same things from a different perspective, and I try to make sure I've got a good grasp on why all sides think the way they do. If you agree that sexual dimorphism affects thought patterns, there's something distinct to be found in the work of female journalists.

>Jessica Valenti

Because hate is a natural feeling and suppressing it makes people aggravate hate into violence.

It's called free speech you communist faggot

>"willingly subject yourself to attacks"
so then just dont subject yourself to them by not looking at them. jesus these libs are children i swear

But you avoided my point. If there can be objective and skilled woman journalists I would have found them naturally. As it stands I have to look for the specifically because they're lacking. The problem isn't needing a different point of view. The problem is having the RIGHT point of view. I don't have to include women because they have vaginas. I WOULD include women if they did their jobs properly. They don't.

I didn't mean to avoid the point. I actively search out a variety of viewpoints, and I considered that to be a valid reason to seek out a good, specifically female, journalist.

Firstly, 'hate' is misused by the left and ascribed to simply disapproving of some things morally. Anti-hate laws are used by the left to cynically gain political power.

That aside, as with everything, actual hate has its function, its appropriate time and place. It's not universally bad. It's a feeling that rises in response to outside danger, and stirs people to protect themselves when they otherwise (wisely) would usually have a policy of peacefulness. Hate is necessary sometimes. For instance, myself - I usually don't feed into the notion of 'hate' between groups, but given the destructive and genocidal program being exercised on Europe right now, and given, as a person of European descent myself, my own self-interest... I think that hate is an appropriate response from working people around Europe. It is actually what they are in most dire need of right now: hate, mistrust, anger, intolerance. Those things should usually be very limited, I agree, but because they were overly-limited in the post-war years, an entire race of people are about to be replaced if they don't regain the balance. It's all about balance and integration. Leftists don't get this. Sometimes they'll ackowledge recognizing humanity's "shadow" or darker aspects, but they don't actually want to face what this means. It means that you have to have mercy, but you also have to have firmness, hardness, severity sometimes. Or pay a great price.

YOUR RIGHTS END WHERE MY FEELS BEGIN WAAAAAAAAAAAAH

That is not what the piece is arguing for at all. Their argument is that people already have sufficient venues for discussion and that there is no benefit to putting comments sections on every single opinion that is published by anyone ever.

However, to your question, I have an easy five second answer.

"Because sometimes the truth is hateful."

We currently live in the world of "Never Again". After witnessing the holocaust, atom bomb, and man's inhumanity to man, we understand full well the monstrous things that we are capable of-- out of fear and as a means to protect ourselves we have wrapped ourselves in lies. Because we are damn well aware of what hatefulness can do.

So we live in a world of No Truth and No Hate. That is the real of our world. That is where we are as human beings.

However, living in this world of falsehoods is causing a decay of humanity and the decline of Western civilization. Truth is necessary for human progress regardless of whether or not it is hateful.

>valenti

Net Neutrality.