[espadrine]

A harmless feature, here, is a physical or behavioral property which is not meant to affect you.

Saying "I hate doctors" is not hate speech, for instance, because doctors want to cure you. It is a case of them causing physical harm (eg. through vaccines) which is socially beneficial.

Saying "I hate disabled people" is hate speech, because they're not disabled to spite you.

[CaptainZapp]

  Saying "I hate disabled people" is hate speech, because they're not disabled to spite you. 

This is an opinion and I would be very surprised if this is illegal in any European country. It's certainly not hate speech. You may just out yourself as a complete asshole and rightfully suffer social consequences if you use such speech.

Now, saying something like "Disabled people are the scum of the earth and should be eradicated" would probably fall under hate speech laws in some jusidictions.

Note the qualitative difference of the statements.

[pc86]

And yet saying "I hate disabled people" does nothing to harm disabled people. I'd much rather people have the freedom to say stupid, harmless things, so everything knows they're idiots and can ignore them on things that actually matter, than be left with people who still feel that way but are simply smart enough to keep their mouth shut.

[gcp]

verbally attacks a person or group on the basis of harmless features of theirs...A harmless feature, here, is a physical or behavioral property which is not meant to affect you.

Ok, so we just banned discussing politics, religion and basically anything that deals with human relations because it's "hate speech".

QED

[espadrine]

Please read what I wrote again.

Saying "I hate the left" is not hate speech, as politics is meant to affect you — it is meant to affect the whole world, after all.

Saying "I hate muslims" is hate speech: practicing Islam is not meant to affect you. That doesn't mean you can't discuss it however: a discussion is not a verbal attack. You can even say "I hate the Jehovah's witnesses that knock on my door", as the group you are referring to directly affects you.

[pofjer]

What about “I hate the passively aggressive Muslims who give their best to impose Islam and Sharia law through funding/helping/volunteering in illegal mosques, illegal paramilitary organisations, semi-legal Muslim clubs and ‘foundations’ as well as illegal ‘schools’ in Europe where innocent children are taught to undermine Western values and the norms of the society that welcomed their parents and grandparents with open arms with the only expectation that they would gracefully accept its secular values with Christian roots instead of giving extra effort to form ghettoised microsocieties who openly express hatred against them?” – is this a more acceptable way to express it?

I won't disclose my personal views, but this is usually what people mean when they say that they hate Muslims, at least according to my experience after talking to them and trying to understand where the problem is. I am yet to see a single person who claims to hate nonpractising moderate Muslims who openly condemn everything listed above – but not only on words, while secretly admiring, liking or even having nothing against any parts of it.

[espadrine]

Your long sentence is not hate speech. "I hate muslims" is. It is similar to how you mustn't say "I hate women" just because you have an enemy that happens to have two X chromosomes.

Although your real argument here is not about hate speech; it relates to proselytism, which definitely requires a legal framework.

[jungletek]

>Your long sentence is not hate speech. "I hate muslims" is.

No, it's not.

Edit: Big surprise that this got a quick downvote with no comment. Really helpful feedback.

Either cite some law supporting the statement in question, preferably one that distinguishes the actual 'line' not to be crossed, or recognize that saying you hate $GROUP is not the same as hate speech, at least in any sane place.

What's next? If I proclaim that I hate dogs, is that hate speech AND animal cruelty?

FWIW I love dogs, and my original short comment was a comment about free speech and sane limits on it. If you think it was a dig at Muslims, or that they're even relevant to the point, your reading comprehension sucks. I don't care what religion you are, it's none of my business as long as it doesn't directly negatively affect anyone else. I also haven't bought into the 'Muslim bogey-man' narrative, if that affects your interpretation.

[akjainaj]

I wish I could gild comments like they do on reddit. Chapeau.

[gcp]

practicing Islam is not meant to affect you

Whoa, that's already extremely arguable.