There is a huge difference between divisive rhetoric (employed by, say, Donald Trump), which shouldn't be banned, and dehumanizing, degrading rhetoric, which should be.
> it's genuinely offensive and gratuitous
Perhaps, but the goal isn't to ban speech that offends you personally, nor is it to solve problems, but to ban speech that harms your standing in society, as in my example.
> Go tell an Bosnian 'your genocide is less important than what happened to black people'.
No one says that. In the context of our society, talk of "white genocide" means (by default, although it should be judged on a case-by-case basis) co-opting white racial speech, and presenting it in a manner that demonstrates its harmfulness. This is not about nuance, but about what such a statement normally means in our actual society. If someone unfamiliar with the realities of our society takes a subjective offence, then that's their prerogative, but the law must take into account the ordinary reality, rather than people who may be unfamiliar with it for some reason.
> it's genuinely offensive and gratuitous
Perhaps, but the goal isn't to ban speech that offends you personally, nor is it to solve problems, but to ban speech that harms your standing in society, as in my example.
> Go tell an Bosnian 'your genocide is less important than what happened to black people'.
No one says that. In the context of our society, talk of "white genocide" means (by default, although it should be judged on a case-by-case basis) co-opting white racial speech, and presenting it in a manner that demonstrates its harmfulness. This is not about nuance, but about what such a statement normally means in our actual society. If someone unfamiliar with the realities of our society takes a subjective offence, then that's their prerogative, but the law must take into account the ordinary reality, rather than people who may be unfamiliar with it for some reason.