[lkerrekfjk]

> The problem isn't controversy, but actual harm inflicted by dehumanizing others, as I explained in my other comment.

No, the problem is controversy. Spewing bullshit on Twitter and gloating at "idiots", isn't going to solve anything. The person that talked about "white genocide" is a professor I believe, so he is supposed to be a bit smarter than the ones who he likes to call "idiots" yet falls into the same trap as them, with his excessive, divisive rhetoric that gets him brownie point on Twitter, but that's about it.

What you don't get is that you're not going to build bridges and inform people on these various subjects if the first thing you do is antagonize them. He is absolutely part of the problem. He didn't need to say that, it's genuinely offensive and gratuitous. You can talk about context all you want, don't expect context on social media, there is none, his comment was heard by the entire planet, and in European countries that suffered greatly from genocidal attempts like Bosnia,Ukraine and others. Go tell an Bosnian 'your genocide is less important than what happened to black people'.

[pron]

There is a huge difference between divisive rhetoric (employed by, say, Donald Trump), which shouldn't be banned, and dehumanizing, degrading rhetoric, which should be.

> it's genuinely offensive and gratuitous

Perhaps, but the goal isn't to ban speech that offends you personally, nor is it to solve problems, but to ban speech that harms your standing in society, as in my example.

> Go tell an Bosnian 'your genocide is less important than what happened to black people'.

No one says that. In the context of our society, talk of "white genocide" means (by default, although it should be judged on a case-by-case basis) co-opting white racial speech, and presenting it in a manner that demonstrates its harmfulness. This is not about nuance, but about what such a statement normally means in our actual society. If someone unfamiliar with the realities of our society takes a subjective offence, then that's their prerogative, but the law must take into account the ordinary reality, rather than people who may be unfamiliar with it for some reason.

[lkerrekfjk]

> No one says that. In the context of our society, talk of "white genocide" means (by default, although it should be judged on a case-by-case basis) co-opting white racial speech, and presenting it in a manner that demonstrates its harmfulness. This is not about nuance, but about what such a statement normally means in our actual society. If someone unfamiliar with the realities of our society takes a subjective offence, then that's their prerogative, but the law must take into account the ordinary reality, rather than people who may be unfamiliar with it for some reason.

And in the context of this thread, we are effectively talking about Twitter, which is a global website and the fact that Tweets are always interpreted without any context to begin with, because that's the nature of Twitter, it is not a forum with structured threads. It's a place where people literally shout things, that's why it is called Twitter. It's a mess not designed to convey any context whatsoever.

My point is absolutely relevant.

> This is not about nuance, but about what such a statement normally means in our actual society

Well, there is absolutely no nuance in a Tweet verbatim "All I want for Christmas is a white genocide", it's perfectly acceptable to interpret it without whatever understanding you think as "objective", especially for a global audience.

> but the law must take into account the ordinary reality, rather than people who may be unfamiliar with it for some reason.

What law? we're talking about controversial speech on Twitter.

> Perhaps, but the goal isn't to ban speech that offends you personally, nor is it to solve problems, but to ban speech that harms your standing in society, as in my example.

And this kind of extreme, offensive and divise speech doesn't harm the US society? then by all means...

[pron]

> it's perfectly acceptable to interpret it without whatever understanding you think as "objective"

Not really, which is precisely the meaning of objective. But in any event, it is acceptable for Twitter to decide that this crosses a line, as they want to be on the safe side.

> What law?

I'm talking about any system of law in general, and Twitter rules are a kind of laws.

> And this kind of extreme, offensive and divise speech doesn't harm the US society?

That's a fair point, but again, no matter what you do you need to draw the line somewhere. I think that drawing the line at dehumanizing speech but not at divisive speech is more-or-less in tow with current standards of organizations in Western democracies, which is a reasonable standard for Twitter as well.