[stale2002]

Why are you conflating "hateful comments" with violence?

You are the only one who seems to be arguing in favor of violence.

You apparently want violence done by the state to happen to people who merely make "hateful comments". Aka, people who make statements you disagree with. Nice tolerance there, bro.

Changing laws should be done through the legal process. Even if the laws changing happen to be something you that personally disagree with.

You are the fascist if you believe that the people you disagree with should be silenced.

[matthewmacleod]

You apparently want violence done by the state to happen to people who merely make "hateful comments". Aka, people who make statements you disagree with. Nice tolerance there, bro.… You are the fascist if you believe that the people you disagree with should be silenced.

This seems to be a bit of a straw man argument. While some people no doubt want those views silenced, that's not the correct approach and not one I see being advocated here.

On the other hand, it's perfectly legitimate to object to those views. Personally, I'd also like that discussion to be a constructive one, and I'm not sure that the whole "unwashed criminal hordes" rhetoric is really going to help with that. Nobody should be silenced, but likewise nobody should be free from criticism for views that we object to.

[stale2002]

The OP absolutely wants those he disagrees with to be silenced.

"The people who brake the law with their hateful comments inciting violence deserve to face the consequences of the law. "

AKA, if people make arguments that he disagrees with, like "immigrants are more likely to break the law", he believes those people who make those arguments should be put in jail.

[illumen]

That's not what I believe, and that's not the law.

Stop making stuff up.

[dang]

Your comments in this thread have broken the HN guidelines by being uncivil and calling names. That's not allowed here, even when you're right—especially when you're right. So please don't do this. Besides breaking the rules and lowering the quality of discourse (yes, others lowered it first, but two wrongs don't make a right), it undermines your argument in the mind of a neutral reader. That's a bad thing to do to the truth.

[illumen]

If you want to prevent me from defending myself against accusations, please delete my account. If you want to defend people calling immigrants rapists that's your call.

Thanks.

Edit: on second thoughts, please delete my account. I don't want to be involved with a website who defends such people.

[dang]

I'm hardly "defend[ing] such people"; I chided that account more harshly than yours. The issue is simply the rules of the site.

When we ask people to follow the rules, people sometimes think that's for political reasons (i.e. we must be supporting their enemies), but isn't—it's simply that no one is allowed to call names, be uncivil, and so on, regardless of how wrong someone else is. Obviously if we're going to have such rules, we need to apply them evenly.

[illumen]

When people spread lies about immigrants, and put them on the internet, in print, or say them at demonstrations to thousands -- then those have a proven affect to incite violence.

This violence happens against innocent people who did not break the law. I am against that.

The people who brake the law with their hateful comments inciting violence deserve to face the consequences of the law. (which is not always violence by the way).

If you think there is really some conspiracy to hide the statistics of rapes by immigrants, then do the research and prove it. Seriously, if it's true, then that will save a lot of people. But the available evidence does not hold that to be true.

[stale2002]

"If you think there is really some conspiracy to hide the statistics of rapes by immigrants, then do the research and prove it."

And how would I go about doing that? Apparently if I make this argument, then people like you will try and send me to jail (or fine me or whatever).

[illumen]

How do you go about making arguments based on reality and evidence? Probably something you should look into.