Sometimes, maybe hate might be a wrong answer to a good question. The idea would be to find out what the question is and then to find a less hateful answer.

More listening and less speech. And educate, educate,EDUCATE...the more we learn about each other....the better

How about a punch in the face for the moron doing it?

One of the biggest issues around this question is the role anonymity plays. The internet has allowed a flood of horrible ideas to propagate because the idiots spouting the drivel know that the backlash is minimal. Meet them face to face and they're suddenly reticent.

Recall all the very contrite individuals after being identified as attendees of the Unite the Right March?

In this case, Valium might be a good first option. If ineffective, move on to the others:

What we need is the right kind of speech. Both sides in the U.S. seem to feel their position is not only right but the only right answer. It seems obvious to me that there is room for compromise and certainly room to at least listen to others. The problem is exacerbated by the belief of some that "Only my answer is right". trump has poisoned the well badly with his constant hate speech and the belittling of EVERYONE who disagrees with him. He thinks only his decisions are the right ones. They're not.

“Better speech”

Quality speech.

Realistically speaking ti can't solve it, only diminish it's reach.

In a shouting-match, the more primitive mind has the advantage because it runs on emotions every day.
You can't cure hate but you can prove that haters are, usually, full of shit. You have to be informed and you have to stay on point.

The big names on the atheist vs religion debates have not been successful because they took a page from the zealots and appealed to emotion and used slander. They stuck to the facts. Let the idiots sneer; reasonable people will be able to distinguish empty rhetoric from content.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant......(Popper 1945)

Maybe it's both?
Maybe the folks who are spewing their opinions everywhere need to shut up for once and actually listen to others. Likewise those who keep silent maybe need to speak up more

I will never understand why anyone feels they have the right to voice their opinions about anything and everything unless asked. Even when asked discretion never hurt anyone.

corpses do not talk.

More breaking balls! Less talking about it!

less hate speech.

the solution to too much garlic is less garlic. the solution to too many mice is get rid of some of the mice.

I'm unsure of whether this post means "more discourse" vs. "limit free speech by broadening the definition of hate speech/incitement", but if it does, then I go with the latter. Nazis don't need more discourse in the public forum, they need shut down. First stop them from spreading, THEN deal with them and try to bring them back into society.

why would either more or less speech be the solution, assuming there was even a solution? haters will always hate. to make the situation better, do two things: 1. tolerate hate speech less (which is NOT the same thing as less speech!) and 2. teach, by example, acceptance and love, which reduce, not eliminate, hate speech.

g