I just don't know what to say. It's like trying to have a conversation with someone who's high on cocaine.Most of the undermining of unions has been done at the state level through republican held legislatures. Yes, Obama was president, but he doesn't get to decide what laws the Michigan state legislature passes.And what about Bill Clinton? It was under his watch the egregious "Workfare" rules were implemented. He signed them into law, and pretty much backed them through the process. He also implemented NAFTA and what had been up to that time the most pervasive forms of internet and email snooping.
Cocaine? Yep, I'm getting the same stuff that Bill Moyers takes.
How Bill Clinton’s Welfare “Reform” Created a System Rife With Racial Biases
And from the far right wing site known as Salon:
Own up to NAFTA, Democrats: Trump is right that the terrible trade pact was Bill Clinton’s baby
So what, only the rich get to reproduce?In the US, women on welfare have triple the birthrate of women who aren't.
Thats a problem with conflating cause and effect, along with the US welfare systems doughnut hole, where you can be in the middle: too poor to really afford a lot of things, too rich to get get any hand outs, and functionally getting less than someone on welfare might.
That does not equate to there suddenly being no non-minimum wage jobs, however. Bringing it back to my original point though, would it not be better to decide the minimum wage at the state and local levels more intensely, and have the federal minimum wage be determined by the lowest minimum wage among the states?
No. Look what happens then. The minimum corporate tax is decided by delware, so corporations from all over the US bribe delaware to keep it low.
You keep acting like the free market is a fair, just, and moral system of equal competitors and those that win deserve to. Its not, and they don't.
If the system cannot produce anything but minimum wage jobs, those jobs should be able to support a family.By "system", are you referring to the US job market as a whole? If so, then that's not the case, nor does it appear to be the case any time soon. Is the gap between the middle and upper classes becoming larger? Absolutely. That does not equate to there suddenly being no non-minimum wage jobs, however. Bringing it back to my original point though, would it not be better to decide the minimum wage at the state and local levels more intensely, and have the federal minimum wage be determined by the lowest minimum wage among the states? In this way, minimum wages could be tailored to suit varying climates (see the earlier comparisons of DFW to San Francisco) as they currently are, but have the federal minimum wage be automatically adjusted based on the changes throughout the country.A federal wage set to the lowest minimum wage among the states is just not having a federal minimum wage. It's completely pointless.
Sorry, I forgot to add in the mildly important caveat in the proposal is that lowering the minimum wage (a state undercutting another for example) would require federal approval, whereas increasing the federal minimum wage would simply require that the state with the lowest current minimum wage raise its own. I'm poorly trying to multi-task and it's showing.
That does not equate to there suddenly being no non-minimum wage jobs, however. Bringing it back to my original point though, would it not be better to decide the minimum wage at the state and local levels more intensely, and have the federal minimum wage be determined by the lowest minimum wage among the states?No. Look what happens then. The minimum corporate tax is decided by delware, so corporations from all over the US bribe delaware to keep it low.
You keep acting like the free market is a fair, just, and moral system of equal competitors and those that win deserve to. Its not, and they don't.
I keep acting in no such way. I've not implied or stated that the free market is any of those things. If the assumption is that corporations will bribe a state to keep their minimum wage low, then why place any faith at all in legislators at the federal level where the exact same thing is possible?
I keep acting in no such way. I've not implied or stated that the free market is any of those things.
Yes, you are. You're questioning the morality of forcing poor, hard working corporations being forced to pay minimum wage to a bunch of slackers by the evil federal government.
If the assumption is that corporations will bribe a state to keep their minimum wage low, then why place any faith at all in legislators at the federal level where the exact same thing is possible?
1) Because states can set wages HIGHER than the federal minimum but not lower. Its two chances to get legislation to do it right
2) It is far easier and cheaper to get a nationwide corporation to bribe a state legislature into submission than a federal one. In a national election you need to override the will of 300 million workers, as opposed say a 600,000 people in wyoming.
Cause it's cheaper to bribe one state?I keep acting in no such way. I've not implied or stated that the free market is any of those things. If the assumption is that corporations will bribe a state to keep their minimum wage low, then why place any faith at all in legislators at the federal level where the exact same thing is possible?That does not equate to there suddenly being no non-minimum wage jobs, however. Bringing it back to my original point though, would it not be better to decide the minimum wage at the state and local levels more intensely, and have the federal minimum wage be determined by the lowest minimum wage among the states?No. Look what happens then. The minimum corporate tax is decided by delware, so corporations from all over the US bribe delaware to keep it low.
You keep acting like the free market is a fair, just, and moral system of equal competitors and those that win deserve to. Its not, and they don't.
How so? Of course this is mostly speculative anyway since we'd be hard pressed to find exact values for congressional bribery, what with the bribers and those receiving them generally wanting to keep it a secret and all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BNW, I think you are reading more into what Battletoad is saying and finding things that are not there.
Yes, you are. You're questioning the morality of forcing poor, hard working corporations being forced to pay minimum wage to a bunch of slackers by the evil federal government.I keep acting in no such way. I've not implied or stated that the free market is any of those things.
No, I'm not. Not once in this entire thread have I argued against whether or not there should be a minimum wage. What I've done is question how its value should be determined (1: Federal mostly vs. state/local mostly and 2: Targeted towards supporting individuals vs. supporting families). I'd appreciate it if you would not put words that I never said in my mouth, namely the characterization of corporations as poor/hard working and the poor as slackers. I made no such implications and would prefer it if I wasn't accused of having opinions I don't have.
If the assumption is that corporations will bribe a state to keep their minimum wage low, then why place any faith at all in legislators at the federal level where the exact same thing is possible?1) Because states can set wages HIGHER than the federal minimum but not lower. Its two chances to get legislation to do it right
2) It is far easier and cheaper to get a nationwide corporation to bribe a state legislature into submission than a federal one. In a national election you need to override the will of 300 million workers, as opposed say a 600,000 people in wyoming.
1) So then that depends upon how you define "do it right".
2) Are you referring to "overriding" the will of those people in order to lower the minimum wage? If so, then see my amendment to my statement above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay... So you go for the "opportunity" paradigm. Meaning that someone who chose not to study, chose not to move to jobs, and so on has passed that opportunity?
I'm not really sure what you mean. I don't buy into the illusion of choice that is often used to deny benefits to people. While it sounds like a good way to motivate people who would otherwise be slackers, the reality is that peoples "choices" are often not between an education and perpetual leisure, but education vs caring for family that needs assistance, or education vs dealing with illness, or education vs basic survival.
With that said, since the money is coming from taxes imposed by force, the services need to be fairly minimal. Your shelter is not going to be as nice as someone who works hard. Your healthcare is probably going to be done by medical students, your food- well, no one in America eats healthy food, so that will probably be about the same.
I think we are a very wealthy nation, and can afford to take care of people who can't or just won't work, without resorting to punitive tactics. Providing shelter, food (I think the government should provide free healthy meals to people) and healthcare is a lot cheaper and more humane then dealing with the consequences of NOT providing those things.
I hope this answers your question. It is a difficult topic to discuss on a surface level, because I would like to see a VERY different society, but that is a comprehensive overhaul, not small changes.
2) Are you referring to "overriding" the will of those people in order to lower the minimum wage? If so, then see my amendment to my statement above.
Overriding a state legislature is not overriding the will of the people. The two are not the same.
That has certainly been my biggest concern.
However, thus far, team Trump really doesn't appear competent enough to pull something like that off... or even make it that long without turning on each other like a pack of rabid dogs. In fact... the knives have already come out... more than once. First Christy, now Flynn. Who do you suppose will get thrown under the bus next? My money is on Spicer... he has the impossible job of insisting that the idiotic is reasonable... and Trump will blame him when it doesn't work.
Given the last few days I suspect Conway will be the next under the knive. She is getting attacked on multiple fronts by the media (bowling green, contradictory statements about Flynn compared to Spicer) and also has that ethic abuse charge. If you have a person's whose major role is to go out in front of the public and spin your candidates proposals, and people don't want her on because she is considered (even by Trump Whitehouse standards) neither reliable or truthful, that person becomes dead weight.
I think Flynn and the recent Spicer/Conway comparisons really do highlight how factional the current White House is. Clearly you have two groups at play, one of which (Team Bannon) appears to be incompetent at governing but good at coming across as appealing to the president. Trump loves this factional infighting as a way to run a company, but it clearly is a horrible way to run a government.
Overriding a state legislature is not overriding the will of the people. The two are not the same.2) Are you referring to "overriding" the will of those people in order to lower the minimum wage? If so, then see my amendment to my statement above.
In your previous comment, you said
In a national election you need to override the will of 300 million workers, as opposed say a 600,000 people in wyoming.
What did you mean by "override" here if not "get the legislature to do X with the minimum wage against the will of the people"?
[
As for, 'the future of the Democratic party'... is there anyone here who is generally Democrat/liberal leaning who believes that after four years of Trump they won't be ready to vote for a Hillary Clinton... or a Bernie Sanders... or Joe Biden... Al Gore... Elizabeth Warren... Cory Booker... et cetera?
There are plenty of potential Democrat candidates that I do not like... but there aren't any that I like less than I do Donald Trump.
That IMO is the future of the Democratic party... and the same holds for 2018. Barring some miraculous transformation from 'Trump' to 'borderline acceptable person' everyone in the country who leans left is going to be horrified and motivated to do something about it. There are many more of us than there are right leaning people. Ergo, things will swing back the other way. At least for a while.
The issue is that this is pretty much what put us in the position we are today. Having control of the Presidency is way way less effective if you can't also seize control of the House or Senate. Relying on folks who are currently ticked off is not going to do much if those folks are mostly in a small number of states.
I am very skeptical that things will have gotten bad enough by 2018 (or at least to the extent where people will easily recognize it) for much change over to occur. MAYBE by 2020. Really what is needed is by 2020 for the dems to get a good ground game going in Purple and Red States, and find a charismatic candidate who can make young progressives and older folks happy. Might be a tall order in 4 years.
[
What did you mean by "override" here if not "get the legislature to do X with the minimum wage against the will of the people"?
If wyoming is looking at raising the minimum wage what you have is the minimum wage workers of wyoming vs a conglomeration of cattlecorp, and Mine Mine Mine mining company.
If you set the federal minimum wage as the lowest state, you'll have the minimum wage workers of wyoming vs EVERY corporation in america. I don't think I need to be a pessimist to take odds on that fight. Corporations would simply bribe one state into setting a national policy to their liking with campaign contributions and adds.
If you need to bribe the entire country with campaign contributions and adds it's much harder. (still way to easy, but undeniably harder)
[
What did you mean by "override" here if not "get the legislature to do X with the minimum wage against the will of the people"?
If wyoming is looking at raising the minimum wage what you have is the minimum wage workers of wyoming vs a conglomeration of cattlecorp, and Mine Mine Mine mining company.
If you set the federal minimum wage as the lowest state, you'll have the minimum wage workers of wyoming vs EVERY corporation in america. I don't think I need to be a pessimist to take odds on that fight. Corporations would simply bribe one state into setting a national policy to their liking with campaign contributions and adds.
If you need to bribe the entire country with campaign contributions and adds it's much harder. (still way to easy, but undeniably harder)
Well, they would really only need to be against their own state legislature still since, just as they are now, they'd be fully capable of raising the minimum wage in their own state (which is in general what I'm pushing for anyway) above what gets set as the federal minimum, regardless of how that gets set.
That has certainly been my biggest concern.
However, thus far, team Trump really doesn't appear competent enough to pull something like that off... or even make it that long without turning on each other like a pack of rabid dogs. In fact... the knives have already come out... more than once. First Christy, now Flynn. Who do you suppose will get thrown under the bus next? My money is on Spicer... he has the impossible job of insisting that the idiotic is reasonable... and Trump will blame him when it doesn't work.
Given the last few days I suspect Conway will be the next under the knive. She is getting attacked on multiple fronts by the media (bowling green, contradictory statements about Flynn compared to Spicer) and also has that ethic abuse charge. If you have a person's whose major role is to go out in front of the public and spin your candidates proposals, and people don't want her on because she is considered (even by Trump Whitehouse standards) neither reliable or truthful, that person becomes dead weight.
I think Flynn and the recent Spicer/Conway comparisons really do highlight how factional the current White House is. Clearly you have two groups at play, one of which (Team Bannon) appears to be incompetent at governing but good at coming across as appealing to the president. Trump loves this factional infighting as a way to run a company, but it clearly is a horrible way to run a government.
It's not a great way to run a company either, as the experience of Sears Roebucks can attest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, they would really only need to be against their own state legislature still since, just as they are now, they'd be fully capable of raising the minimum wage in their own state (which is in general what I'm pushing for anyway) above what gets set as the federal minimum, regardless of how that gets set.
No. And this is why i accuse you of having a rosey colored view of how our government works.
The legislature does not represent the people. We do not have a democracy, we have an oligarchy. The people are NOT capable of getting what they want put into office through our system of legal bribery.
Well, if that's actually true, than none of it matters. Who cares whether you're trying to bribe one state or many or the whole nation to go against the will of the people, if the people have no influence.
Well, they would really only need to be against their own state legislature still since, just as they are now, they'd be fully capable of raising the minimum wage in their own state (which is in general what I'm pushing for anyway) above what gets set as the federal minimum, regardless of how that gets set.No. And this is why i accuse you of having a rosey colored view of how our government works.
The legislature does not represent the people. We do not have a democracy, we have an oligarchy. The people are NOT capable of getting what they want put into office through our system of legal bribery.
They do have an influence, but only when it's clear that they're about to riot en masse. When that happens, you get an FDR to save the system from itself, by easing out it's worse aspects.
Well, they would really only need to be against their own state legislature still since, just as they are now, they'd be fully capable of raising the minimum wage in their own state (which is in general what I'm pushing for anyway) above what gets set as the federal minimum, regardless of how that gets set.No. And this is why i accuse you of having a rosey colored view of how our government works.
The legislature does not represent the people. We do not have a democracy, we have an oligarchy. The people are NOT capable of getting what they want put into office through our system of legal bribery.
I firmly disagree that it's an issue of capability, and propose instead that it is one of apathy/defeatist attitudes (note this is not the same as "slacking"). As evidenced by our incredibly low voter turnout (particularly when state and local positions/referendums are on the table), it's pretty clear that people simply are either not willing to vote changes in to office (the apathy/defeatist part), or they're content with the way things are. Note that here I'm describing different groups of people, not saying that the country as a whole is entirely one or the other. It's not bribery that's keeping us "down", it's we the people. Not all of us, obviously (an unfortunate effect of living in a Republic where voters are willing to vote against their own interests).
So I have to ask, if the people aren't capable of getting what they want put into office, then what's the point of proposing changes to the way things legally are? If it's to bring about change, then clearly people ARE capable of getting what they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I firmly disagree that it's an issue of capability, and propose instead that it is one of apathy/defeatist attitudes (note this is not the same as "slacking")
The problems with america will not be fixed with an attitude adjustment.
As evidenced by our incredibly low voter turnout (particularly when state and local positions/referendums are on the table)
Like that anti corruption bill the people passed...aaaand the legislature just undid.
it's pretty clear that people simply are either not willing to vote changes in to office (the apathy/defeatist part), or they're content with the way things are.
Look what someone trying to implement change is running against. You run into a massive wall of money, a public that's been lead to accept angry vitrol for fact, and the right has it's own news network going 24 7 scaring the living daylights out of old people telling them that the communist muslim atheists are going to take over the world!
Its a pretty thin line between defeatist and realist.
Note that here I'm describing different groups of people, not saying that the country as a whole is entirely one or the other. It's not bribery that's keeping us "down", it's we the people.
B%~#*#$*.
[/url]see figure 2: how the govenment works vs the ideal of types of government
Blaming this on some quasi spirit of the american people is disguisting. It's blaming the victim for a corrupt, abusive, systemic usurpation of the peoples right to self government.
So I have to ask, if the people aren't capable of getting what they want put into office, then what's the point of proposing changes to the way things legally are? If it's to bring about change, then clearly people ARE capable of getting what they want.
It swings. every once in a while you can swing it JUST far enough to hit that next branch.
|
I don't think Kellyanne is going anywhere. She's just doing her job as a professional distraction - to lie and spin the random nonsensical stuff The Cheeto constantly says into submission even in the face of irrefutable facts. I don't think Trump can get rid of her. Who else would be willing/able doing to do her job 24/7?
I just don't know what to say. It's like trying to have a conversation with someone who's high on cocaine.Most of the undermining of unions has been done at the state level through republican held legislatures. Yes, Obama was president, but he doesn't get to decide what laws the Michigan state legislature passes.And what about Bill Clinton? It was under his watch the egregious "Workfare" rules were implemented. He signed them into law, and pretty much backed them through the process. He also implemented NAFTA and what had been up to that time the most pervasive forms of internet and email snooping.Cocaine? Yep, I'm getting the same stuff that Bill Moyers takes.
How Bill Clinton’s Welfare “Reform” Created a System Rife With Racial Biases
And from the far right wing site known as Salon:
Own up to NAFTA, Democrats: Trump is right that the terrible trade pact was Bill Clinton’s baby
The cocaine reference isn't to you being wrong, but that you're jumping topics. Talking to you isn't coherent, because I'm talking about one thing and you want to jump to something else. This isn't an invitation for you to tell me how they're linked; I don't care.
If I'm talking about topic A and you want to talk about topic B, just make a post without replying to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I don't know what Citizen Moonrunner's on about, but there was a union-busting angle to "workfare" that was much commented upon at the time, at least by us reds. Seems to have gotten into the NYT at least once:
Many Participants in Workfare Take the Place of City Workers
It means you got 5 more people to join? :)I saw an interview with Comrade Kshama on Al-Jazeera that our party ranks have increased by 30% since the election.
We've gotten 5 more people to join in our little backwater branch. I believe we had hit a thousand before the election, so I'm guessing about 300?
I don't think Kellyanne is going anywhere. She's just doing her job as a professional distraction - to lie and spin the random nonsensical stuff The Cheeto constantly says into submission even in the face of irrefutable facts. I don't think Trump can get rid of her. Who else would be willing/able doing to do her job 24/7?
|
|
Factions in the WH?
Breitbart has a cover story citing WH sources saying that Reince Priebus is dropping the ball and to blame for all the turmoil in the administration.
Fox 'News' is running a story saying that Trump kept Pence in the dark about Flynn's sanction discussions with the Russians.
That's your two major factions right there... Breitbart is carrying water for the white nationalist Bannon faction while Fox is trying to distance Pence from the fallout so he can take over if Trump is forced out or gets annoyed at the lack of worship and quits.
Of course, Pence is pretty far out there on the bigoted fringe himself, but in the Trump White House he and Priebus are what passes for traditional Republicans who are 'not radical enough' for the Bannon faction.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Current word I've been seeing the past few days is that WH staffers are bypassing the official e-mail system and are using encrypted, self-deleting messaging services. Trump/Bannon are on a witch hunt over recent leaks, so staffers have switched to untraceable communication to protect themselves from being fired.
So since this thread is just as much general politics now as it is "Future of the Democratic party, it's worth pointing out as well that Puzder just withdrew from the nomination process for Labor secretary. McCain also just came out against the OMB nominee as well.
Honeymoon for the Republican Party and Trump could be ending sooner than anticipated?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the undermining of unions has been done at the state level through republican held legislatures. Yes, Obama was president, but he doesn't get to decide what laws the Michigan state legislature passes.
Tell the Air Traffic Controllers that.
Most of the undermining of unions has been done at the state level through republican held legislatures. Yes, Obama was president, but he doesn't get to decide what laws the Michigan state legislature passes.Tell the Air Traffic Controllers that.
This one? They endorsed him in 2011 as well.
Or are you talking about the changes in hiring practices, the articles for which all read like they were written by a MRA.
RE: 15 dollar minimum wage.
Have we got any numbers as to what % of the population in the U.S. making minimum wage are in tipped waitstaff positions. Cause i know in that case the cost of employee wages is already passed on to the customer.
Yeah dt, you kinda lost most people with that last line. It might be wise to avoid alphabet soup in this thread.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I've been reading up on hate speech lately. I've got a couple papers coming up and I'm linking them topically. Avoiding references to a couple specific individuals, there are more than enough people throughout history to give us a really solid base to talk about.
What is the goal of free speech? I would argue that primarily the goal of having free speech is to protect political dissent. Those in political power cannot be allowed to punish those who dissent with them. Being allowed to say you hate/love/don't care about your local football team is a nice side benefit, but it isn't really the primary concern when talking about the freedom of speech. The concern is that doing so will not have legal repercussions or political retribution.
It's already agreed that not all speech is protected. The go to example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You aren't allowed to intentionally mislead others for the purpose of causing harm. In a similar manner it isn't allowed to make false claims for the purposes of taking someone's money.
Protecting free speech is important, but speech that is considered primarily harmful isn't allowed. When looking at hate speech, to determine if it should be protected, wouldn't it need to pass the bar of being "not harmful"? The concept of free and open dissent from political leaders is a net positive to society; allowing and encouraging dissent is the only way to avoid group think. Making better decisions as a society is the goal of a varied political discourse that better represents the will of everyone. Hate speech doesn't fulfill any of these positives.
For clarity, I'll define hate speech as that which incites violence or prejudicial action against or by a group, or individual on the basis of their membership to the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a group, or individual on the basis of their membership to the group.
Protecting hate speech provides a good only in that we as a society are willing to protect (nearly) all speech. The actual effect of the speech itself though is a net negative. Hate speech spreads lies about groups of people and is the first step to authorizing oppression of that group of people. Hate speech that influences the rules of an institution has a direct negative impact. Hate speech creates outsiders of members of society, which reduces their status in society. This reduces the value of their speech, and limits their avenues of dissent. Hate speech has a negative impact on other people's free speech.
Hate speech in this context isn't talking negatively about specific individuals for their specific actions. It's repeating stereotypes, lies, half-truths and slander about a generic group of people, such as Jews, African-Americans, or Mexicans. For example, saying that most Mexican immigrants are "drug dealers, criminals, rapists" is not true. It has a harmful effect on the debate of what to do about immigration and actually impedes societies ability to reach a useful conclusion. It also emboldens people to actively silence those who fit the inept description of the hate speech. It becomes an excuse to limit the free speech of others.
Defending hate speech might have a small positive impact, because defending it sets in place legal protections for more kinds of speech. Overall though, it doesn't pass any test of speech that is useful or positive, but instead fails those tests, and actually has a demonstrable harm.
In 1952, the Supreme Court upheld an Illinois law that made it illegal to libel groups of people. A man was distributing pamphlets warning of the dangers of criminal African-Americans, but since his statements were libelous he was charged and convicted.
Unfortunately the SC has turned away from this standard and adopted the "imminent harm" standard in 1969. Basically the SC will protect anything that doesn't cause immediate and obvious injury, and ignores the the more subtle, long term effects of hate speech. The ACLU has taken a stand to defend the right to hate speech and in doing so has helped paved the way for people to feel emboldened enough to act on their prejudices now.
In short, hate speech reduces the value of free speech in a society, therefore it should not be protected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For clarity, I'll define hate speech as that which incites violence or prejudicial action against or by a group, or individual on the basis of their membership to the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a group, or individual on the basis of their membership to the group.
This is what you define as hate speech. What is your definition of "group" in this? I think you'll agree that it's rather central.
Are you talking about ethnic groups (which seems to be the case later on in your post) here? Is it about cultures? Do you see a difference? Nationality? Religion? Would that include scientology? Is it organizations? Or is it ANY possible group?
I would argue that primarily the goal of having free speech is to protect political dissent.
I am sure you are familiar with the old rag that "everything is political". If the government claims that, say, extramarital sex is criminal, does this change a protest against this into your concept of "speech that should be protected"? And if the government claims that it is destructive in the extreme to American society that people have extramarital sex, doesn't protesting against this fall into hate speech for "causing harm", as you say?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Government policy is not an individual or a group of people. Therefore speech in dissent against it cannot be reasonably called hate speech.
If you're talking about a corrupt government that calls anything it dislikes hate speech, the problem there isn't the concept of disallowing hate speech, the problem in that scenario is the corrupt government. Even if the government didn't use the terminology around hate speech to silence dissent it would use other means, or create them, to do so. Not giving the government tools to prosecute harmful hate speech within the court system does not prevent the government from being corrupt.
Political leaders have silenced opponents for millennia before the concept of "hate speech" was ever defined as a modern term.
As for the definition of group, that really varies depending on the speech. The variety of groups is as broad as the derogatory terms used to describe them.
Rhetoric associating African-Americans with all sorts of negative attributes was common and used to justify Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. By using a similar style of language now, political leaders are laying the groundwork to justify the use of armed force to take control of cities and enforce government edicts that the courts are striking down. This is a process that has played out in places like Germany and Rwanda. Hate speech is an explicit attempt to "other" a group of people and justify horrendous acts against them. This is it's primary value and I don't think we should be so shy about saying that it's negative, nor be so tolerant of it.