thats the issue, you start moving away from the individual and start talking about groups and culture as a whole

Tribalism

Where you do something someone doesn't like and thei tribe gets to rape your daughter as compensation

I seen it in Africa, do you really want it <:SmugPepe:510408646807519233>

but the idea is that these norms lead to a move away from treating people as individuals

if you allow "racism" to propagate then that will lead to a less "individualistic" society

right, but the way you address that is not in a group manner.. its individualistic... and everyone is innocent until proven guilty

and if you're operating off of the presumption that there are no meaningful differences between the races or sexes or whatever then these sorts of things become a lot more problematic in this regard

sure it's individualistic in that you prosecute individuals for contributing to this

i mean don't get me wrong, i can see why liberals who are very focused on state power would see this as anti-liberal

and I would argue, an individual going on a rant about white people is not arrest worthy

https://www.rt.com/uk/477855-whitemoor-prison-officers-attacked/ <:monkaW:587411995616083968>

but from where i'm sitting it almost seems like liberalism manifested in a religious form

not really... there is no faith involved

rather than being focused on the tension between the autonomy of the individual and the power of the state the focus is on maintaining a culture conducive to a liberal conception of man

the only faith needed... is when people are arrested for saying "racist" things... you need to have faith in what their intent was

that goes for any crime where intent is a factor

intent can be proven tho... if say a murder occurs, and they find plans, emails, etc of the murder before it happened

i don't think that's needed to prove intent in a court of law

otherwise i think a lot more homicides would be tried as manslaughter cases

of course you need to prove intent in a murder case

yeah but that level of evidence isn't needed to prove intent

yeah you can prove intent in many ways... thats my point

but you wouldnt just go on faith

you still need "some" evidence

okay

how is that any different for hate speech cases

because speech itself isnt a crime

expressing an opinion isnt a crime

at least not in a liberal country

well i think we've gone in a circle

I mean whats the "intent" ... to hurt someones feelings?

should that really be arrestable?

hurting someones feelings?

to spread a message that contributes to society being less liberal ergo contributing to the violation of people's liberty

how would it be less liberal?

how do I have less liberty if someone rants on twitter about how they hate white people?

they are propagating idea that can contribute to an illiberal society

in the same way for example that the weimar republic was overtaken by quite illiberal ideas

and became illiberal as a result

and violated what liberals would consider to be liberties to an extreme extent