george Patton: and an example of hate speech apparently
In his comments regarding the argument that our government should be able to decide what is "free speech" and what is "hate speech" he used almost exactly the same words I used when the matter of Bishop Tamaki's comments about the earthquakes came out a few weeks ago. I'd heard people say his movement should lose the tax free status churches enjoy in New Zealand - or that he should be prosecuted.
Like Spencer I found myself asking "Do you really want to give the power to decide on what you can say to the government? Really? What if the next government doesn't like what you say - what then?"
No, far better to discuss so-called hate speech. What exactly was said? Why was it said? What was meant (how many times I've said something informally or humorously in one context which, if repeated out of context, would appear far more offensive than what I intended – we’re not in a court of law here, I am allowed to read facial expressions, body language and speech inflections)? Was violence advocated? Honestly? Just because I don't like an idea does that make it hateful? Does quoting nasty things someone else said or wrote mean that I too am a hateful person? What if I quote some distasteful passages from the Qur'an? Or the Bible? Or the Encyclopaedia Britannica? Can I no longer mention historical fact or quote the most influential of written works if they upset some people? If not doesn't that greatly limit the general advancement of knowledge?
Spencer gives the UN a very hard time here. Though I would not go as far as he suggests - I still see much good being done by the UN - from his perspective and considering his over-riding desire to nullify cultural and violent jihad, which has been aided and abetted by UN Resolution 16/18, I find his position quite understandable.
He discusses the recent Presidential election and what a Clinton victory may very well have meant for free speech (I completely agree with him that we all dodged a bullet) and the changes of direction we may see under a Trump Presidency. Again, his language may seem harsh to our ears but it rests upon the unavoidable conclusion that there is something in the culture of much of Western leadership that makes them unable to think clearly. Many such leaders tend toward Socialism, cultural relativism and a felt need to control language - to wit: the political Left. (I'm trying to remove blockages to understanding his language here.)
It must be said that the political Left have many more significant blockages to understanding the religion of Islam than those that they purport to represent.
Forty-eight minute video including 20 minutes of Q&A.
Again, Mr Spencer talks. We listen.