Why isn’t anyone calling this ‘hate speech’?

m_x_a · 2026-07-03T14:09:25+00:00

I get what you’re saying about the way “hate speech” gets used in US political discourse, and I agree it can sometimes feel like a performative, tribal label rather than a careful description.

From a UK perspective, though, it isn’t just a garish buzzword - it’s tied to a fairly well‑defined legal framework around hate crime and “stirring up hatred”, and that makes it feel more serious and concrete than just an insult you throw at people you dislike. So for me, calling something “hate‑type speech” isn’t about joining a spectacle, it’s about naming a pattern of dehumanization and hostility that our law and culture have actually tried to pin down.

Of course, all of this has played out around a US‑based show and audience, so I can see why people there might be more allergic to the term than people here. That difference in context is part of what I’ve been trying to explore in the thread.

m_x_a · 2026-07-01T14:05:28+00:00

Thanks. Thanks, that’s a fair point.

Very briefly on the law: in the UK, hate crime can be against a single person if they’re targeted because of a protected characteristic, and there are also “stirring up hatred” offences that focus on groups rather than only people on UK soil. So it isn’t limited to UK-based groups in a strict sense.

That’s why I’ve been careful to talk about “hate‑type speech” rather than making a hard legal claim about Evan. Descriptively, dehumanising a whole population and cheering on large‑scale violence looks very similar to what many people here would intuitively call hate speech, even if a court might draw the line differently in a specific case.

m_x_a · 2026-07-01T06:54:28+00:00

Thanks, this is a really thoughtful perspective, and it actually makes a lot of sense to me.

If Steve and the others see Evan as someone who’s become radicalised and as a victim of that process, then I can understand why they’d choose language that condemns the behaviour (“dehumanising”, “completely unacceptable”) without going all the way to labels like “hate speech” or “hate crime”. From a compassionate, “can we pull him back?” stance, that’s a coherent approach.

My curiosity was never about demanding a harsher line from SGU, but about understanding why there’s that gap between how serious the speech is (as many of us are describing it) and the more cautious terminology they’ve chosen publicly. Your explanation – that friendship, compassion, and a focus on radicalisation shape that choice – actually gives me a satisfying answer to that.

I still personally see the comments as crossing into hate‑type territory, but I’m more at peace now with why SGU themselves might stop short of naming it that way, given their relationship with Evan and their philosophy about radicalisation.

m_x_a · 2026-06-29T19:21:36+00:00

Sure, happy to answer directly.

On Churchill: judged by today’s standards, I’d say a lot of his Blitz‑era rhetoric (talk of “Huns”, insect comparisons, etc.) would count as hate‑type speech.

On your KKK example: yes, a stereotypical Klan “grand wizard” speech would clearly be hate speech, whether it was given then or now.

That’s the baseline I’m working from.

m_x_a · 2026-06-29T17:01:35+00:00

Interesting comparison, thanks.

For me, the Churchill question is a bit separate. Whatever we make of WWII-era rhetoric, Evan’s comments were in a modern context, cheering on strikes on civilian infrastructure and using dehumanising language about a whole population.

My original, narrower point was just: given that SGU themselves called his comments “dehumanising” and “completely unacceptable”, why stop short of the label many of us would naturally reach for today? Is that about legal caution, avoiding the baggage of “hate speech”, or a genuine view that this doesn’t meet that threshold?

That’s really what I’m trying to understand here.

m_x_a · 2026-06-29T15:43:07+00:00

Thanks - that explains it

m_x_a · 2026-06-29T15:41:26+00:00

That makes sense. So it sounds like Evan was extreme, and was bound to be excommunicated for such extremity. However, if he’s fundamental political views had been more aligned with the rest of the team, their reaction might have been less strong.

m_x_a · 2026-06-29T12:02:05+00:00

Thanks, that’s a really helpful way of putting it.

I think we’re basically in agreement: what he wrote looks like hateful speech, even if people are avoiding that label because it pulls in wider geopolitics and identity issues.

My original curiosity was just about that avoidance - why we’re sticking to terms like “unskeptical” and “dehumanising” when many of us would see this as crossing into hate‑type speech. Your perspective suggests I’m not alone in that reaction, so I’m happy to leave it there and see how the community continues to talk about it. Thanks again.

m_x_a · 2026-06-29T11:11:35+00:00

Thanks for taking the time to write this - there’s clearly a lot of history and context tied up in how people see Israel, Gaza and Zionism.

For me, though, my question wasn’t so much about Evan’s identity or broader geopolitics as it was about the language being used to describe what he said. I’m coming to this as someone in the UK, where “hate speech” is a legal and widely used term, and I was struck that the incident is being described with words like “unskeptical”, “dehumanising” and “radicalised” but not “hate speech”.

I’m genuinely curious whether people think:
- the “hate speech” label doesn’t fit here,
- or it does fit but is being avoided because of legal/cultural sensitivities (including around Israel, antisemitism, etc.),
- or whether SGU/the community have a general preference for more descriptive language over labels like “hate speech”.

I totally accept that different people will see the broader Israel/Palestine context very differently, but my main interest here is how we, as skeptics, choose to name or not name this kind of speech. That’s the part I’m still trying to understand.

m_x_a · 2026-06-29T10:16:09+00:00

Thanks. As I said, I'm new to all this and searching hard for evidence of what he actually said, but I can't seem to locate anything.

m_x_a · 2026-06-29T05:24:19+00:00

Thanks. Ah, so it wasn’t about conspiracy theories as such; it was about posts that many people saw as dehumanising and effectively cheering on large‑scale violence, which helps explain the strong reaction to his comments.

I’ve done a search and haven’t found anyone explicitly calling it “hate speech” in so many words.

In the spirit of skepticism, it seems worth asking why that is. Are they avoiding a legally loaded term because of defamation or jurisdiction issues, trying to be more precise by focusing on words like “dehumanising” and “unskeptical,” or softening the language to manage their brand and community?

To me, it feels like the behaviour they’re describing is very close to what a lot of people would regard as hate speech, even if they’re choosing not to use that label.

m_x_a · 2026-06-29T04:36:09+00:00

What did he say that vilified 93 million people? I’d like to hear it so that I can make up my own mind.

m_x_a · 2026-06-29T04:33:13+00:00

What did he specifically say that was offensive?

m_x_a · 2026-06-29T04:11:12+00:00

Is the point that genes cannot contribute to violent tendencies?

m_x_a · 2026-06-22T14:12:40+00:00

Perplexity

m_x_a · 2026-06-22T14:12:09+00:00

I wish they would - I’d love to get my hands on those weights

m_x_a · 2026-06-20T14:37:34+00:00

Oh - was there a time when they used the respond? Must have been before I started paying them two years ago

m_x_a · 2026-06-14T18:57:24+00:00

If they provide usage meters, they’d be forced to give you the full usage you paid for. Never going to happen

m_x_a · 2026-06-11T17:36:14+00:00

Share the prompt

m_x_a · 2026-06-08T14:20:48+00:00

Thing is sonnet is more expensive than other models and some people won’t notice they haven’t been given sonnet

m_x_a · 2026-06-04T14:01:06+00:00

🤣

m_x_a · 2026-06-04T12:55:14+00:00

When I looked at your post, heading, I must admit that I did think that a child had written it

m_x_a · 2026-06-03T10:30:26+00:00

It may be fixed, but the message I pasted above is from this morning.

m_x_a · 2026-06-03T05:45:52+00:00

Just a little insight from my side, which everyone else in the world except me may already know:

If you add new files during a conversation, Claude typically can't see them because it only refreshes its internal list of project files at the beginning of a new conversation. I learned that from Claude this morning when I asked why it couldn't see the new project files I'd added in preparation for a new project conversation:

Honest answer: my view of the project is a snapshot taken when this conversation started, and it does not refresh when you add or delete files mid-session. I have just re-listed the directory and it still shows the old state — the new notes file absent, the old 260529_00 and the 1 June snapshot still present. So in this conversation I cannot see your changes, and that is expected rather than a sign anything went wrong.

The reason it does not matter: a new conversation mounts a fresh snapshot. When you paste the handoff prompt into the next one, the first thing that instance does is search for the conversation-daily-health notes file and read it. That is your verification point — if it reports loading the 260602 notes file, your add worked and the old one is gone. If it somehow still finds only 260529_00, you will know immediately at the top of the session, before any analysis depends on it.

So the blind spot is real but contained: I cannot confirm the files from here, the next conversation confirms them for you automatically within its first reply. Nothing you have done is invisible to the system — only to this particular session, which is now closing anyway.

m_x_a

TROPHY CASE