[tablespoon]

> No, but if you think "hate speech" is a clear and definite term with no room for abuse you are deluding yourself.

That's actually not an uncommon situation for a term, such is human language. Most terms have fairly established meanings with a bit of fuzziness around the edges. That doesn't mean they're meaningless, arbitrary, or not useful.

> The person I responded to clearly knew why he was being downvoted. He presented an unsophisticated and (on this forum) unpopular view of hate speech rules.

It was certainly unpopular with some, but I wouldn't say it was unsophisticated.

> Insisting that people who are critical of hate speech rules are white supremacists is not a constructive take.

I made it clear that was an example, not a general characterization of any group. You'll also notice I didn't specify any particular race, so you're basically putting words in my mouth.

[lliamander]

Those are several points that I would love to argue with you about, but I'm afraid we would be drifting from the main point.

The other commenter was insisting others take certain accusations or forms of disapproval at face value, yet was hypocritically quite defensive when challenged and down-voted.

The idea that "hate speech" accusations form some sort of special category where they should be taken at face value is absurd.

It was a rhetorical attempt to bully someone into submission that failed because most people here recognized it for what it was. And then he whined about people not approving.