@Ajen@sh.itjust.works correctly identifies this. Any ideals can be interpreted in bad faith to infer something that was not intended. If I said I prefer tea - someone would be more than happy to infer that I hate coffee.

My statement was a profession of what I believe to be correct. It is a brief summary of what I was taught and what I determined to be correct based on my experiences… and I stand by them. Admittedly I did bait a hook for a particular kind of person and am not displeased with the result. It appears to have yielded several great examples of what I was talking about.

Addressing your post despite the rather “loaded” opening which I imagine you know shouldn’t warrant a response:

Hate speech doesn’t exist until it is uttered. The damage is immediately done. It isn’t - then it is. How do you propose stopping that? I’m genuinely curious. You appear to be holding my beliefs accountable for not employing precrime or espers… which admittedly, I don’t factor in. They do, however, propose the solution: support the victim and admonish the person who was out of line. There are demonstrations of this, in action, in this thread.

People are social creatures: standing with someone is more powerful than simply removing an undesirable statement after the fact. It removes the isolation from the victim and provides support. It says: we, this group, will not stand for your actions. It isolates the perpetrator and makes them, consciously or not, aware that something is wrong. As I stated before: this may not change everyone but the net result is positive.

I’m happy to continue this discussion but it only seems fair that you expand on how you / your views would solve hate speech as it seems to be something you are passionate about… right?

Strawman. You’re implying that OP believes hate speech can’t encroach on the freedom of others. Nothing in their post leads me to believe they think that.