Which Is More Hateful?

There exist in the English language certain words, phrases and terms that seem to have attained a power almost parallel to magic spells, these days. Etymologically, this actually makes sense; 'damn', 'shit', and 'fuck', along with several other fun words, used to be referred to colloquially as 'curse words'. And what is a 'curse', in the mystical-magical sense? An expression of negative magical effect brought forth usually with enchanted incantations.

George Carlin had a famous bit about this, and you all pretty well know it. Joe Rogan has a more modern observation as regards 'permissible phraseology' that I absolutely adore-

"You mean to tell me there's certain noises you can't make with your face anymore? What the fuck're we doing here, man?"

Much has been made for time out of mind surrounding the concept of 'hate speech', and a lot of hay has been produced in the endeavor to define the parameters of what it is, enough to feed a whole team of thoroughbreds. Most folks who self-identify as liberals or progressives would say that hate speech consists of any term, phrase or notion which is derogative of others based on their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, religion (though Christians and Jews don't seem to fall under this protection for liberals and progressives), or other innate and unalterable traits. They frequently allow wiggle room on this, spooling out just enough rope for folks to hang themselves with; comedians are their favorite targets for this practice.

In addition to the pejorative/derogatory confines, many who advocate for the recognition of hate speech laws, protections and proscriptions will broaden the term to include any speech which causes discomfort or offense to any person or persons who are made even mildly uncomfortable by it. Finally, they will include expressions, spoken or written, that mock or belittle people based on singular characteristics, be they innate or actively enacted.

The whole thing is a bit of a mess. If it were an organization, Twitter would be its public meet-up spot.

The ultimate goal of proponents of hate speech protections seems to be to push social and criminal penalties for such statements and utterances to the point where people will opt to self-censor rather than run the risk of being put into the camp of 'bad people'. They claim that anyone arguing against hate speech protections are just looking for an excuse or defense in order to be actively horrible people. They make no distinction between the ability to say naughty things and the intent to be meaningfully offensive. Context and intent largely don't matter or exist for such individuals.

To which I say, get fucked.

I have a question to pose, one that will undoubtedly get me into heaps of trouble, but which will demonstrate my point. Many of you will cringe to even read the the question, because it will contain an epithet that would get me banned off of Twitter in a heartbeat, flagged by Facebook, suspended on YouTube. You may read it and be inspired to dox me, or hunt down my employer and try to get me fired. Remember, however, that this question is posed to prove a point, and doing such things will prove exactly my point.

Okay, I present below two statements. The question for you, dear reader, is as follows: Which is more hateful?

A) Trans women are just fags in dresses.
B) For saying or typing something that insults or demeans myself or others, I demand that you lose access to communications online, lose your source of gainful employment, be utterly shunned from society, possibly lose access to funds you've already earned through de-banking, and if you should ever be free of the public eye, then the very moment you attempt to resurface and put your life back together, we will collectively ensure that you are kept from succeeding in returning to even a modestly tolerable existence, regardless of whether or not you intended harm before or not, or if you've adapted your worldview.
Which if those is the more hateful? Is it the brutish assertion with derogatory language? Or is it the sentiment that the speaker/typer has to be utterly annihilated from everyday life? Is the A statement an incitement to violence in any way? Or is it demeaning and mean-spirited? Because while the B statement may be worded more politely, its intention borders on the murderous.

So I ask you this: is 'hate speech' what needs to be prohibited and protected against? Or is socio-economic murder of a singular person what needs to be prevented?

Let me know what you think. Oh, and if you want to try to get me kicked off of Twitter, be my guest.