Malgo’s argument states that the subtext of hate speech is an important factor to consider because word alone are not powerful. We should be looking at the speakers intention before declaring their comments as hate speech.
Indy argues that this is not the case, that words should be weighted as equally as intent because all forms of hate speech are bad.
I agree with Indy. If a comment is taken offensively by a specific group or group of attributes, and inspires hateful thought and action, it should be dealt with as a moral wrong.
https://iwpr.net/global-voices/bosnias-accidental-genocide
Bosnia’s “accidental genocide”
(Remainder of discussion in notebook)
Even if we accept the accidental genocide, which we shouldn’t, we should acknowledge the power of conversation as a process for determining what is fair for everyone. Krajisnik’s sentence was short due to a lack of evidence, but a fair argument would yield that due to complicity in mass genocide and trauma he should be separated from others for as long as possible. We should take the stance to be more sympathetic with our decisions regarding hate speech. Arguments are a disputing art where both sides have their views respected and articulated to be weighted equally. And for this there must no other higher values, that includes intent. Everyone should feel welcome to be part of the conversation and how active we choose to be is our decision.
