Should hate speech be allowed ?
Should all forms of hate speech be allowed, including the racist ones. Should hate speech which instigates violence be allowed ? If we ban a certain type of offensive speeches and usually the arguments are oriented around feelings being hurt. We may also argue against criticizing a religion or an ideology. I know one of the group isn't a choice and the other is but does it matter.
Comments (2424)
I don't agree that speech can actually cause violence. People deciding to be violent causes violence.
Let's consider the famous case of sharon tate murder.
Charles Manson was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder for the deaths of seven people. Although the prosecution conceded that Manson never literally ordered the murders, they contended that his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy.
Should state prosecute people who order killings or have a stance or an ideology which promotes violence.
It would radically change the world because all it takes is a good orator appealing to a disfranchised people to get to power and commit atrocities.Take Hitler for example.
It's a slippery slope argument but l believe that an absolute viewpoint can cause havoc in this crazy place we call earth.
Ordering killings is completely different than promoting violence in general. I'm sure the first would be considered conspiracy to murder. The second, as long as it directly lead to violent action, should be protected.
No, not in my view. A number of times I've brought up the extreme case that people like to bring up (and I now see you did in the following post): to my knowledge, Hitler never killed anyone. I don't know what, if any crimes (that I'd consider a crime) he committed, but certainly no speech, nothing he ever ordered, etc. should be considered a crime.
It's your choice, your responsibility, to follow orders or not. There's no way I'd follow an order to kill anyone if I didn't think it was justified to kill them. And then that's on me, because it was my choice.
If I'm king, there are no conspiracy laws.
The world we need is one in where people don't believe anything just because someone said it, don't automatically follow anyone's orders just because someone gave them, etc.
I think that's a fair point. The devil is in the details as always. The main problem that l see is deciding where the blurry line lies between cause and effect. If a speaker, specifically points out a person and orders his followers to cause harm to the person, that would clearly be a direct cause of any violence. However if a speaker fuels hatred among his followers against a group and resorts to very general marks such as " We wont let them live here ", which can potentially indicate violent intend and effect.
That's not a direct cause because I could just tell him to screw off. I have to decide to do what was asked (well, or "commanded")
I don't have any solid evidence of Hitler ordering killings as such that l can present here but it was a general understanding of the holocaust which is likely correct due to the anti-semitic hate speeches of Hitler. This debate on the responsibility of the holocaust is ongoing among historians with bothsides having credible reasoning and evidence behind their stance.
Considering your argument which states that the burden of act solely lies on the one who carries it out and not the one who motivates it.
Would you regard fraud as being a crime since the victims at the end of the day are actually the ones who fall for it and carry out the act.Frauds obviously use the freedom of expression to scam people and should they be convicted by law. I would like to see how the world will be if we adopt an absolute position on free speech.
And yet over 10 million people died who otherwise wouldn't have, yet in your world he would be free to go about his day, watering his daisies and whatnot. Societal objectives are achieved not by slavish adherence to ideology, but by actually looking at what our policies do. Whether you wish it to be the case or not, it is the case that organizers actually organize things, often through meetings, discussions, and motivation, all of which are speech acts. That's why they get credit for great successes and blame for great losses.
If you're not motivated to change your position based upon the absurd conclusions it leads to, then you're just left with reasserting your position, damn the torpedoes. I guess the question would be what sacred ground is being protected by maintaining your view that causes you to allow people to die and suffer? Should we hold Hitler responsible and stop the deaths, what will be the painful consequence of our transgression from what you deem holy?
Yes.
I'm not saying that people who are murdered are responsible for their own murder because they "fell for it."
Fraud is a crime not because of speech, but because you're promising something that at some point you have no intention on delivering--it's a contractual issue, not a speech issue.
Fraud being illegal isn't banning any words. It's banning there being no intention of delivering/making good on something something that one contracted to deliver/make good on.
Again, in my view, "The world we need is one in where people don't believe anything just because someone said it, don't automatically follow anyone's orders just because someone gave them, etc. "
if we have people who'll follow orders to kill someone just because the orders were given, that's the problem. Having laws against speech isn't going to change that.
Clearly, Hitler did nothing wrong. It was all just talk. The world we need is one where psychopaths and killers rather than have to do their dirty work themselves should be given free rein to threaten, coerce, and bribe others into doing it for them. That way, though we'll have much more death and destruction around, at least we can rest assured that we'll have absolutely free speech. Because in the end that's what's really important.
Failing to meet a contractual agreement is a form of deception and it falls under the general category of lying.
If someone lies to you and you fall for it, it will be on you just as you argued in case of murderers who fall for hate speeches and carry out the act of murder.
The key point of your argument is that , the one who carries out an act is solely responsible for the act, irrespective of anyone who motivates him.
Applying your principle to fraud implies that the person who is a victim is at fault.
I never implied that, but the murderer is only responsible not the instigator according to you. Similarly in a fraud the person who spreads misinformation is not at fault.
I'm not positing anyone "falling for" anything there. That implies it's out of their control. It's not out of their control. They can make a decision to carry the act through or not.
Since I'm having to repeat this, I want to get that part straight first.
By falling l never meant out of their control, l meant being influenced to a significant effect.
Okay, but the issue is that they're deciding to do something that should be illegal in my view.
It's the same thing with fraud. Contracting to deliver something you don't deliver should be illegal in my view. The person who decides to do that is the person doing something wrong. The problem isn't with "lying" per se. It's contracting to deliver something you don't deliver.
We don't have a world like that. We hold both the organizer and the person who followed the order responsible for the act. The "I was just following orders" rationale is not an accepted excuse.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Again, you're not absolved of responsibility because you were following orders. You're held just as fully responsible as if you came up with idea, but there's no value in absolving the person who organized the massacre just so he can go and organize another massacre.
Right. But it's what we need in my view. And we're not going to get it by keeping some speech illegal.
We'll better have a world where people can't organize a massacre just because of speech if no speech is illegal and we foster an environment of people not following any speech just because it's uttered. Make the people who carry out the actions in question solely responsible.
Speech can't literally cause anyone to do anything. Speech isn't the problem.
I think that's a fair point. How about if a leader is in a position of authority where he uses those below his rank for heinous crimes. Do they really decide and have a free will. Let's say you are a nazi soldier who is ordered to kill an innocent Jewish women and if you refuse to obey the orders, you could get yourself executed. When a person of authority commands you to do a certain act, he is using you as a tool for his crime like a murderer using a gun to kill someone. Would you consider commands to also fall under free speech ?
Yes, of course.
Quoting Wittgenstein
Sure. And I'd not only get myself executed in that situation, I'd get myself executed if I were ordered to torture a cat or something like that.
Quoting Wittgenstein
Yes. I've already said a couple times that people shouldn't follow orders just because they're given. That we have a culture like that is a big part of the problem.
A contract isn't a speech act? Sounds like an ad hoc exception to the absolutist free speech rule you advocated. If I ask you to murder someone for $100 and you do it, am I guilty of contract for murder for which I can be punished? If instead of money being the consideration, I tell you I'll let you into my gang if you murder, am I now guilty of contract for murder? Is this just going to be a game of trying to characterize speech as not speech so that we can punish people the way we always did? I'd assume Hitler's henchmen got something in return for their misdeeds (fame, honor, joy, national pride). If these things were offered in the exchange for their evil deeds, can we now pull Hitler from his petunias and lock him away?
We could go about creating exceptions to your rule, or we could just scrap your rule as being maybe not completely thought through.
Why does making them solely responsible make them less likely to do it? I'm up for giving both the organizer and the trigger man the maximum sentence. It's not like if I hold the trigger man and brains behind the murder equally responsible, I have to divide their 20 year sentence in half
I am really glad that you are willing to die for others and save their lives but everyone isn't. Even if you want the world to be like that, it is not possible simply due to the way power works. If people could simply overcome orders,there would be no authority in this world. Is the world like that now, No. I think we have to be pragmatic when we take a stance. There will always be a hierarchy of power due to uneven distribution of resources.
I explained this already above. Why am I having to repeat it? You're not prohibiting any speech. The issue is with someone promising to deliver something they're not delivering. The issue is with not delivering what was promised. The issue isn't speech qua speech.
It's a step in changing the culture.Quoting Hanover
Okay, but I'll fight you (literally) to avoid that. ;-)
Right. No. But we should try to make the world better.
I don't know how it is in Australia, but the UK is more willing to censor speech than the US is, even what we would consider fairly innocent. I don't have any particular criticism. Different societies have different traditions.
Take Jefferson. Take Mandela. Take Walesa. Take Aquino. Take Havel.
Free speech rights are rights granted to people as protection against government restrictions. The government does not need such protection. They have the power.
Except, none of them used hate speech to my knowledge.
In the context of arguments before, we were arguing against letting leaders get away with inciting violence under the banner of free speech.
Commands can also be ordered by cult figures, religious figures. Government is just one form of power that may not need the protection but in most of the cases, people who issue commands are not immune to prosecution. Right before elections, some politicians may resort to extreme speech ( arguably hate speech ) to win a certain fraction of people as in case of Trump in America or Modi in India. Nuff said .
You call it "hate speech" and it appears you want to give the government the power to both define it and enforce it. In the late 1790s, Congress passed the Sedition Act which severely restricted protest against the government. That's what happens when you give the government the power - it restricts legitimate speech. It's true everywhere and always. That's how governments work. That's why we need the Constitution and the will not to let it be eroded.
Quoting Wittgenstein
The subject at hand is military commands, commands with the backing of the government, not commands by Charles Manson.
Right, what always happens is that people want increasing restrictions. They keep pushing the envelope on what they think is okay speech to prohibit.
I have to agree with @Terrapin Station on this one. It isn’t a matter of stifling subjective expressions of opinion (deemed hateful or not). It’s a matter of educating people to be aware that these are subjective expressions of opinion, and their own thoughts, words or actions in response are their own responsibility. This is the case regardless of the power, influence or control we may have handed over.
The problem is that society currently doesn’t work this way. When we say that the speech of one human being instigates violence in another, we separate the responsibility from the right or capacity to act. Cause and effect then retains all rights but passes all responsibility up the chain of command. It seems like there is no choice, but the truth is that the alternatives are freely rejected - and yes, death is always an option.
When we start to accept speech as a source of power over the actions of human beings, which must then be controlled by another external power, then I think we’re going backwards, not forwards.
Not to be crass but this is almost laugh out loud funny. "Can you imagine if other people's speech were to be influences on other people? My gosh, no, however could we 'accept' that? It's never happened, ever, we better not start 'accepting' it now!". Like - which planet does this line of thinking come from? It's certainly not Earth.
There's even scholarship on it (e.g. Freedom of Speech: Words are Not Deeds, Harry M. Bracken); legal cases as well (e.g. Cohen v. California)
'Control?' Like one 'controls' a toy car? That's not how the power of speech operates - at least not except under the most restricted and terrible conditions. The vocabulary of the question is wrong from the beginning. The point is simply that to say that 'we can't accept speech as a source of power over other people' is like saying 'we can't accept the sky is blue'; human history to a large degree the results of the power of speech and action over and with others. One can try to not 'accept' reality - but the loser here won't be reality.
Which is the reason it's so important to protect free speech rights.
On the "I don't like Mondays" thread currently active, there has been a discussion of the differences between the US's and other country's attitudes toward violence. There has been talk of a "warrior culture" of hero worship. I am skeptical of that sort of explanation, but I do recognize there are cultural differences and that the US is at one extreme, at least among liberal democracies. I wonder if the differences in opinions on free speech is related.
This doesn't follow and is also really dumb on the face of it. "X is really, really important, which is why we should under no circumstances, in any way all all, do anything about it".
Knowing the deep respect and admiration you feel for me and my ideas, I'll interpret your response as "I disagree with your point of view."
??, no. You must take advantage of your free speech rights and answer 'Fuck you, you dumbfuck'! By the way, on another thread, fellow Americans argued that the U.S. is not a democracy, it's a republic!
You're a dangerous person, you want to ban hate speech - and criticism of religion and ideologies? Criticism is hate speech?
This is the heart of the issue about hate speech, I argue, that speaking about something can only serve to increase its prevalence, the opposite effect is very unlikely. So by uttering words of hate, you spread hate. However, many people do not simply wish to ban hateful words but characterise honest and fair criticism as hate. If you've spoken simply and you're not such a person, fine but there are many who want to abuse and weaponise this power to silence people by saying they're uttering hate. Who could be trusted with that power?
It is more dangerous for people to silence fair criticism by calling it hate speech than it is for hate speech to go unpunished.
I think the gist of your argument is ; when we restrict hate speech and give government the power to do so, we may end up restricting legitimate speech. That's clearly a slippery slope argument. It is the responsibility of the people to oppose government policies that aim to take away their human rights as in any democratic state.
Taking us back to 1790s and using an example from over 200 years ago and applying it to 2019 won't strengthen your case. Constitution doesn't really help since the judges can interpret it differently. The UK doesn't even have a written constitution. In the west it may be a strong pillar and a cornerstone but if you take a closer look around the world, when people partake in revolutions, they tend to overthrow the constitutions and replace. It is the collective consciousness of society that prevents those in charge from committing immoral acts. That's precisely why dictators try to brainwash people because a piece of paper cannot prevent violation of human rights, it's the people who prevent and raise a voice.
I don't think l am dangerous and banning hate speech isn't even new. I won't even claim that it's my idea, l am here for discussion only and frankly l am neutral on the issue. German government has banned neo-nazi parties and all the gestures, symbols associated with the nazi party. Last time l checked Germany wasn't a dictatorship, it's a democratic government and they haven't forgotten their history , particularly the harm that can be caused by hate speech.
I categorically state that we should never ever ban criticism of religion and ideologies. Are you happy now.
Would you ban a neo-nazi ideology or an ISIS ideology in your country ?
If the question is raised in the context of a democratic government. The people have the power and no one should be trusted with authority except under the observation and the support of general public. I don't see how this could happen in a democratic government unless the people were blind and sheeps. Obviously in an authoritarian government, such Bills which deal with speech acts will always restrict legitimate criticism too and no one in their right mind would argue for that.
The transfer of power and responsibility is the key aspect of this conversation. If a leader of an extreme group continues to inspire his followers to commit crimes and he cannot be convicted, that would give him even more authority. Where is the thin gap between ordering and instigating and should it matter ? If a soft stance towards hate speech causes chaos and disruption of order in society, will you revoke it or clutch to it stubbornly ?
The keen problem with almost all social theories is, they tend to ignore ground realities and tend to fail miserably when applied. More than often, hateful preachers do not tolerate other people's opinions. The demographic which tends to argue for allowing hate speech is usually the one unaffected by it. People don't really need to be educated about how responsibility works cause the society is based on rights and duties. There are other rights which are not usually talked about. As individuals in society we have a duty to spread peace and stop acts of violence and hate, otherwise we may end up on the receiving end. The problem with your stance is that the world cannot behave in such a way, it would wipe itself out. Could you imagine leaders starting nuclear war over extreme nationalism and ending up destroying the human race. That is a far fetched comparison but it applies to even basic social units like towns.
Generally the law holds people accountable to the degree of their involvement in a crime. No one argued that we should allow those who physically commit hate crimes to go free and chill, they should be primarily punished for their offenses but stopping justice right there won't stop hate crimes from recurring. An important principle behind law and prosecution is that implementation of law should bring more stability and lessen crimes. If we were to allow hate speech, we would end up in a vicious cycle of crimes and the law would fail to serve its purpose.
Because I think the latter is never justified I think that the former is never justified, again, for the same reason. Everybody should be allowed to say what they want and vote for what they want.
I understand what you’re saying, but there’s a difference between accepting ‘the sky is blue’ as a description of experience and accepting ‘the sky is blue’ as a statement of fundamental reality. The fact that one may experience speech having a degree of influence over their actions does not make that ‘power’ an objective reality we cannot but accept. It’s still a perception.
Understanding how we have surrendered to the words we hear and interpret this ‘power’ over our emotions, thoughts and actions, and then having the courage to take it back, is more effective and less destructive in my opinion than trying to exercise authority over what people can and cannot say. I believe human history demonstrates that.
No, you don't.
This is a tortured and spurious distinction. Moreover, there is no question of 'taking back power' over words; one of the ways we exercise our powers and liberties is through our engagement with words (with other words and actions) and not in spite of them. The power of words is positive and constitutive of who and what we are, not a foreign object to be treated at a remove. Words without power are dead letters, worthless to anyone, and leave us diminished. If we don't put ourselves at risk in and through words, we may as well be pigs making sounds at each other - which is exactly what liberal politics would make of us.
Exactly.
Imagine if people couldn't understand the difference between influence and causality. That would be funny, wouldn't it?
That's almost as funny as your reading comprehension abilities.
But in order to have any responsibility for causing someone to do something, you literally have to physically grab their body and move it around. Kind of like puppeteering. And your emotional and behavioural responses to speech acts are just like menu items you pick and choose at your whim regardless of context. It's not like anyone can force you to do anything like they do in human puppeteering. History, psychology, and neuroscience all back this up. Like, totally.
Feel free to send me threats of imminent violence. I'll have a similar reaction to my reaction to your poor attempt to argue via misplaced satire above.
It takes more than oratory, not to discount the effectiveness of well written speech. In Hitler's case (and numerous others) more was required.
Hitler was backed up by the Sturmabteilung, literally Storm Detachment, which was the Nazi Party's original paramilitary. The Storm Troupers and the Freikorps left over from WWI backed up Hitler's speeches with liberal doses of blunt violence.
The Germans were not disenfranchised. True, the were defeated in WWI, but they weren't occupied. True, the Treaty of Versailles was intended to cripple their future military intentions, but the allies were busy with their own problems and the Germans were initially discrete.
Hitler built upon and enflamed the already well-established German (and European) anti-semitism.
The Nazi military program was effective in bringing Germans relief from high-unemployment (owing to the world-wide depression).
The Nazi Party did not gain power by winning overwhelming majorities in the popular vote.
Democratic institutes do not ban a certain group to vote but ban parties that may be racist/fascist which may threaten democracy itself and the well being of people if they are elected .I don't see how hate speech is linked with the right to vote. There is a fundamental freedom of choice but within the framework of mutual respect for others rights too. If your speech deprives other people from having a right to live a dignified life, and in some severe cases the right to life. Society will in retribution redefine certain rights to protect a more broad spectrum of human rights.
I don't object to your free-speech absolutism, but at the same time I don't agree with your rejection of the the idea that speech can cause behavior (violent or beneficent). If speech had no effect on behavior then we really would be wasting our breath.
Speech can influence behavior. Speech (texts) can cause intellectual and emotional reactions. Speech can influence, direct, shape, alter, and cause behavior under certain circumstances. If we grant consent to the speaker to direct our behavior, then it will influence our behavior. Who does such a thing? All of us, at one time and many more.
WHY we grant consent to speakers to affect our behavior is another complicated question, but we do. IF we decide to go to a rally for Bernie Sanders, his speech will probably "cause" us to feel enthusiastic and excited; it might well result in us writing a check, and so on. The same people listening to a speech by Trump are likely to feel all sorts of unpleasant emotions. Why? Speech works (up to a point).
I felt really uncomfortable when I read Cormac McCarthy's The Road. Did McCarthy's words "make me feel" uncomfortable? Or feel a sense of relief at the end of the novel? In as much as I granted consent (suspension of disbelief), yes it did.
I have nothing but contempt for the limitations on free speech at universities spawned by students who demand safe zones, trigger warnings, protections from ideas they don't like, and so forth. The students who want these limitations don't seem to have any control over what they grant consent to.
Controlling one's reaction to what other people say is a necessary corollary of free speech. The students at some universities apparently are unable to control their reactions. Students aren't alone in this, of course. People choose to attend Trump rallies and consent to be influenced by his speech. At a different place and time on the political spectrum, many people chose to listen to Roosevelt's Fireside Chats on the radio and were reassured and comforted. Some people chose to listen to Roosevelt and were enraged -- also by consent.
Some people are walking around with "open-ended consent to be influenced by speech". They are primed and ready to react to whatever they hear. It's dangerous for and to an individual to grant such opened-ended consent, because other people will say upsetting words, and these words will result in their flipping out.
@Wittgenstein
I'm not against people being de-platformed for hate speech when the platform is owned by a private organization (or individual).
What I'm against is banning individuals from publicly speaking hatefully.
And I'd say that the right to vote is relevant because it's analogous.
What would happen if we stopped the worst sorts of people from voting for bigoted reasons? What would happen if we stopped people from voting against immigration for reasons like "I hate non-whites"? What would happen is that those people would just start pretending to be non-bigoted and they would become dangerous but hidden rather than dangerous but out in the open.
It's the same with hate speech. It's better to have the bigots out there in the open where their ideas can be challenged than to have them pretend to not be bigots until they get into a position of power and then, when they do, they can legislate against the rest of us.
If these people want to openly reveal how monstrous they are: let them. Don't let them go into hiding and only reveal themselves after they have power.
I agreed with this until I met enough humans. Do you really think most people have the clarity of thought (or ever actually pause to intentionally 'think') to live up to this standard? Doesn't history show a regular pattern of the masses being convinced to slaughter for their leaders? If I am killing for 'justice' and 'freedom' is it any different? How does one know if they are fighting 'for justice' vs 'for hitler'? I get this does not make your position wrong, but if the mass killings were unlikely (of course we cannot say for sure, but seems safe) to occur at the same level without hitler or stalin...then aren't they somewhat responsible? I do not believe in prison for the sake of punishment, but I do believe in separating the problematic people from society - in that sense Hitler and Stalin would go to jail - does it matter if I call it 'a crime'?
Don't you think there are some people (like us) that naturally WANT to NOT follow? Our independence of thought defines us. Not so with most people I know - they are defined by those around them and their 'achievements'.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I think we just need the Avengers :smile: Your statement sounds simple and obvious. But my life experience has not led me to believe it is remotely possible. People WANT to believe. Something. Anything. And when someone comes along making big promises...they can't wait to jump on board.
I have not read the whole thread yet, so feel free to point me back to reading if I missed something...but I am worried my post will get REALLY long (it is already quite long compared to your posts), and I know you hate that :grimace:
I think they did play a significant role but to the extend of providing security and oppressing rival parties. That
did certainly help to provide a platform for the nazi party to convey ideas to the public but the message conveyed, particularly anti-semitism, military expansionism and fanatic patriotism were all the focal point of Nazi party winning public support. I did simplify Hitler's rise to power but in my opinion, oratory and the policies played the most significant role in the rise of Hitler to power.
Sovereignty of a country is given prime importance when forming any foreign policy and having the ability to regulate the army according to the geo-political situation in neighboring countries is paramount to safeguarding it.
The germans as a nation lost the right to protect their homeland under the pretext of preventing future backlash from the defeated countries. They could not employ troops on certain areas and the military figures were fixed.
The economic aggression was terrible too, even those countries that won the war suffered. To make matters worse, Germany had to pay war indemnity and the depression era as you have mentioned made things unbearable for a country that had just lost a war.
The measures clearly violated their right to sustenance, right to having a shelter and the right to live a dignified life. It does not justify waging a war and all the other atrocities committed but the Germans were genuinely disenfranchised. Hitler exploited their feelings and added fuel to the fire by carefully executed hate speeches.
It is actually difficult to exactly pinpoint the driving force behind Hitler's rise but speaking on broad terms, it is likely the aftermath of WW1 and the treaty of Versailles if were honest. Hate speech always needs a context and an environment.
As if either there are correct ways to formulate the concepts, or as if social norms make something correct.
Again, influence is different than causing something.
I would agree with you in principle but disagree in practice. It is always better to have terrible ideas in the public domain as long as they can be refuted and be rejected by society. In most sensible countries, the hate speeches are deemed valid by a minority and they seldom rise to power anyways, even if they were wolf in sheep's clothing, they would be a minority. The problem arises when they begin to garner support ( they can harm society when in minority too (racist rampages for example ) ) and it is always too late to fight back when the words turn into deeds and those at the "wrong" end face a lot of harm.
I don't think it's easy to answer this question because of the numerous factors involved but we can weigh out the pros and cons.
Can we trust each other individually and the society collectively to handle hate speech responsibly without any serious consequences ?
There are no free speech rights on the forum. As I said, rights apply to governments. In private communications such as the forum, dems whats in charge can restrict what we say as much as they want, which is as it should be. The rest of us get to choose whether or not we participate.
Also, keep in mind, @StreetlightX is The Man.
If you do X, there are potential very serious negative consequences. Because of that, I don't think you should do X. How is that a slippery slope argument? If you go walking during a thunderstorm in a field on high ground carrying a long steel pole, you are likely to get hit by lightening and killed. I recommend you not do it. Although, I guess if you are walking on high ground and it's raining, there may actually be a slippery slope.
Quoting Wittgenstein
I think it's a very good and relevant example. John Adams, one of the authors of the American Declaration of Independence and considered a hero of liberty and freedom signed it into law. There is only one thing that can really help ensure free speech rights, and that's the rule of law. In the US, that means the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights; tradition and common law; and the courts. Of course it's imperfect and fallible, but it's all we've got.
That's how it works in the US. Other countries enforce the rule of law with other documents and institutions. I won't criticize any other country because their protections are imperfect, just as I don't expect perfection from our own protections.
Quoting Wittgenstein
As I indicated, I disagree. It's the rule of law that matters.
This is true; zeitgeists are notoriously difficult to nail down, but none the less they are a real factor. Hitler wasn't just "whistling Dixie". A lot of his speech was directed toward solving German problems in a not altogether novel way.
Germany did have a problem feeding itself. It imported a lot of feed and fodder, as well as meat and fruits and vegetables. Contrary to the upper-midwestern reputation of German-American farmers, the methods of farming in the old country wasn't all that efficient. Parts of Germany (under the control of the Junkers) did much better. The population had grown quite a bit, and heavy wet soils just aren't that good.
Other European countries had similar problems. Denmark's large pork and dairy production depended on imported feed and folder. The UK wasn't self-sufficient in food. Ditto for the Scandinavians. France had a much better farming-food-population situation. The USSR had large, fertile wheat growing areas. Eastern Europe also was self-sufficient in food (my guess).
Then too Germany didn't have that magic black stuff, petroleum, to which a lot of modern industrial activity had shifted. They had coal, of course, with which their chemists worked wonders, and some iron ore. Besides all that, they imported as much high quality metallurgical ores as they could financially manage, up until the late 1930s.
If one loathed Jews, then Germany and Europe had a "Jewish problem".
A student of history would note that United States, among others, improved our economic prospects with a "take it easy, but take it" approach. The sniveling 13 states that began our country's existence had big plans well beyond the eastern seaboard. True, we bought the Louisiana territory, but the rest -- a lot -- we just snatched from Mexico. Same approach with Florida, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Hawaii, etc. We exterminated most of the Indians, at times one by one, at other times en masse. And, famously, we built a lot of our wealth on slave labor. Hitler was quite familiar with our methods.
So Hitler's speeches were preparatory to war as a tool of economic salvation. He may not have said so at the beginning -- that would have been highly impolitic -- but he and the Nazis worked patiently at revving up the war economy, getting people to focus on Jews as THE designated problem (if they didn't already think so), and so on. Various institutions like the Gestapo made sure that the German people fell into line, and stayed in line.
So, the point to all this is, Hitler wasn't just about hate. Hate was a tool. His grand design was intended to solve the German natural resource problem--Lebensraum, and more. Great Britain solved their resource problem with empire; the Americans did the same thing on the North American land mass. France, Belgium, Holland, Spain, Italy, the Turks, the Austrian-Hungarians, Japan, Russia -- all had accumulated colonies or used territorial expansion, much to their economic advantage. Hitler intended to unify Europe, whether Europe wanted to be unified or not, and whether the Europeans wanted the Germans to be in charge of the unification or not.
So, here we are now. Europe is unified (sort of) and the Germans are the keystone in the structure.
Before the first world war, the German colonial empire ( 1884-1914 ) was the third largest empire at that time, it was short lived but if the first world war wouldn't have happened, Germany was self sufficient with regards to their resources. There is evidence of industrial development in German colonies during that period, hence it would be outrageous to suppose that the Germans were desperate to solve their resource problem at that time.Hitler did mention in his Mein kampf various measures that could resolve the economic problems faced by germans and he avidly disregarded population growth control as a tool for solving resource problem.
He explicitly suggested that growth of population is dire for overcoming other European countries. It's true that most countries or empires did solve their resources problem by colonizing areas filled with natural resources.
Since all the "good" land was taken by European countries, Hitler suggested invading them was the only option left.
The population around 1933 was 67 million and roughly 9 percent of population was killed during the second world war. I think the economic problems could have been solved by other means and the fact that Hitler was ready for another War, despite being a soilder in WW1 and knowing that it would be a global disaster. He was simply magnifying the problems and delivering false promises and building false hope. He was filled with vengeance and the crowd identified with him as they couldn't see the man he truly was behind all the rhetoric.
I agree with you on this point. Hate speech can never stand on it's own and it is always used as a tool. I would like to shift this discussion a little. In recent times, people have raised concerns over forcing religion down a childs throat and many count it as brainwashing. Also the topic of religious education being taught at school. After all, it is a conversation revolving around influence of speech on the mind and body.Can we trust the public with hate speech. By trust, l mean believing that the public is capable of dealing with hate speech without enforcing it and carrying out terrible deeds and if not, can they give up their desire to be living in a peaceful and a tolerable place?
To me, it was more like if you do X, Y can be triggered too. We can separate free speech and hate speech and a lot of
countries have a general understanding of the differences and the public too.There is also another form of free speech which l have no problem with since it causes more good than harm, or even no harm in most cases.The speech act in which classified information is unveiled before the public's eye which can be potentially harmful for those in power.Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are great examples and heroes.
The case of Julian Assange is a clear example of violation of human rights and limiting freedom of expression. He is resisting his extradition to the USA, simply because he does not trust the system to protect him as the elite want him behind bars and to silent him.I am sure that you are opposed to political victimization of Julian Assange and most liberal Americans are too. I understand the power of the law but the citizens can always elect leaders that can separate hate speech and other forms of speech and if we go down that road, we may end up being afraid of making politically sensitive laws, lest something that is good is also thrown under the bus and even if it does happen, the people can always raise their voice.l dont think prohibiting hate speech will stop hate speech, it will discourage it.
I agree with this statement 100 percent. I would go on and say that the enforcement against hate speech will also be imperfect and such legal works are always adopted to minimize certain deeds as they can never totally wipe them out.
Do you know the story of the german policemen being sent to the east to shoot jewish men, women and children? Not SS men, not even battle hardened soldiers. Ordinary policemen from german cities. They were given the option not to partake, without repercussions. Yet perfectly ordinary people shot jewish children, in the belief that they were "doing their duty". All it took to get these ordinary people to do that was words.
Quoting Bitter Crank
It seems like you're saying that you have total control over your reaction to speech. That'd be a truely marvelous ability. Ordinary humans have to make do with subconscious reactions to all kinds of things. There is plenty of research on this, too.
Quoting luckswallowsall
The thing is that simply challenging ideas doesn't always work. The current Trump presidency is a great example. You can challenge what Trump says all you want, but all he has to do is to constantly repeat it and a significant fraction of the people will believe him.
Quoting T Clark
Further restrictions are not a consequence of previous restriction in the sense that a lighning strike is a consequence of carrying a large pole during a thunderstorm.
Quoting Bitter Crank
This is false. Hitler's goal was to destroy the cultural influence of jews on european culture and restore a "natural order" where the germans would, as the worlds most powerful people, come out on top and get what they deserve. Hate of everything jewish was central to Hitlers ideology, it was not about the economy.
When I look at the West today, it seems to me that free speech shouldn't be taken for granted at all. Criticising religions like Islam is already hard in many Western countries and that's just one example.
Do not incite violence, don't compare a race of people to rodents and other extremes seem like easy bans. Why allow such rhetoric when it has no merit at all. It isn't that kind of stuff that I want to protect. Will people be allowed to criticise religions freely, will they be able to express their thoughts on gender honestly, will people be free to challenge the government on immigration policies. Some Western countries already consider some of those things to be hate speech.
There are many controversial topics where people escalate as a weapon. Outrage culture, I suppose. If what is necessary to win that battle is to call something hate speech, there won't be a moment's hesitation. If that's a path to controlling what people are allowed to say - and what they have to say. Then this will be done, is being done and as I said earlier, this is not a trivial concern. The very term "hate speech" implies that it's something that should be banned and if it was that simple then of course, there's no reason for debate. The problem is when things which aren't hateful or said with ill-intent are deemed hate speech because it's a convenient way to silence people.
This comment was in response to your invocation of the "slippery slope" defense. It was my intent to show that it didn't apply to my original comment. Also - how is "if you do X, Y can be triggered too" different from "If you do X, there are potential very serious negative consequences."
Quoting Wittgenstein
I think you've understood our point, we don't claim there is no harm from what you call "hate speech," only that there is more harm, much more harm, from restricting it.
Quoting Wittgenstein
Again, I think you've missed the point - restrictions against what you call "hate speech," perfect or imperfect, cause severe damage to the exercise of "unalienable rights." Imperfect would be better than perfect. Non-existent would be much better.
As for Julian Assange, I'm generally sympathetic to the things he's done. I don't think he should be prosecuted. But I don't think it's Quoting Wittgenstein
Of course they are. Further restrictions are a direct, I say inevitable, consequence of allowing government intrusion. And it's not "further restrictions," it's restrictions that damage fundamental rights.
I have no problem with making it hard to criticize religions like Islam. It's just that I don't want it to be the government that does it. I also want the government to protect the safety of people who say unpopular things. I don't think there's anything wrong with making it hard on people who criticize religions by legal social control means, e.g. public criticism, restrictions on speech by private parties, and other similar acts. Some of that might be harsh and unfair, but it's not inappropriate to have to face the consequences for the things you do or say.
Would it be wrong for an employer to fire an employee who is a member of the Nazi Party... I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure it would be legal.
Of course there are, as there are restrictions. Just like everywhere.
Quoting T Clark
"Rights apply to governments". Nonsense. Rights apply to whomever states decide they apply.
Quoting T Clark
This is a public forum. The communication here is public, not private.
Quoting T Clark
Your speech is already restricted and these restrictions are already misapplied. What you fear so much is already happening. Your precious constitution does that, that's generally what constitutions do. :scream:
In my view, the best course of action is to engage in debate and prove their arguments absurd.
Violence may follow speech, sure, but that isn’t to say the speech was the cause of the violence anymore that it is the cause of non-violence if people act otherwise.
No. The administrators and moderators have total control over what is written here. There is no countervailing force except for their commitment to good philosophy, fairness, and open discussion and their desire to have a successful and active forum. As I said, that is as it should be.
Quoting hairy belly
Decide that rights apply to you all you want. That doesn't mean anything without a force of some kind to back you up. That force may be legal, moral, practical, political....
Quoting hairy belly
As I said, this forum is owned and controlled by private parties who are in complete control of it. It's public only in that they allow access to it. Just because I invite you onto my property, that doesn't mean you have any rights of access. I can tell you to leave, ban you, vote you off the island, any time I want.
Quoting hairy belly
Again, you are mixing up what is a right and what is allowed. As for my precious Constitution, and constitutions in general, no, it does not primarily act to apply restrictions. The US Constitution does two primary things 1) it sets the rules and procedures for government and political action and 2) it provides protections against government action. 2) is primarily accomplished in what is known as "The Bill of Rights," the first 10 amendments ratified along with the original Constitution, as well as additional amendments added later. The Bill of Rights was specifically added to prevent the types of government intrusion which took place before the Revolution. The Constitution wouldn't have been ratified without it.
I was talking about the government - to go through every context, each one needs to be dealt with individually. The government needs to protect free speech and that may include regulating businesses like Google and Facebook. The responsibilities and powers of privately owned venues like this forum are negotiated but ultimately decided by the owner, that is fine. I would look at the ramifications rather than just the action alone though. Some businesses are too influential and powerful to allow to censor their users for political gain.
You and I agree.
The choice of words here is really important. There are muslims who regard mockery of their religion to fall in category of hate speech and most of them allow criticism in an academic way, but many westerners regard mockery as also a part of criticism and in broader context, freedom of expression. Would you allow ISIS narrative in your country under the banner of free speech ?
I think we are on the same page, as you wouldn't mind banning racist speech or those which instigate violence.
But in my opinion, most western countries do allow discussion on religions,gender and immigration policies too but sometimes they are not politically correct topics to talk about. For example in the UK, a lot of pedophilic rings are reported among south asian mans but the media won't talk in such terms. There are countless other topics which media sweeps under the rug for winning popular support.There should a be counter culture for most of the political incorrect topics so that people are not afraid to speak about them.
ISIS is a poor example that you keep going to as their narrative is characterised by a call to jihad - violence. I have said I do not approve of inciting violence and that banning that kind of speech is easy enough, in fact, it's fine for it to be criminalised.
I do not hyperbolise the situation of the West, freedom of speech is not something that should be taken for granted. Much like many will agree America is a rather flawed democracy - despite being the champion of democracy. The West will support free speech, the danger are "caveats" like hate speech which are misused. A dismantlement of free speech would certainly come under the guise of something like this and really, that's already happening. Most western countries do allow things like Islam to be criticised and etc but it's not hard to see that this is coming under threat, a problem, a concern, which wasn't there before.
I never characterized disclosure of classified information as hate speech as you can see "There is also another form of free speech which l have no problem with since it causes more good than harm " . I used the phrase, another form of free speech. What l meant by harm wasn't equivalent to the harm done by hate speeches. If a document reveals certain military operations conducted by a country in which war crimes were committed. It harms the person in authority and it is well deserved a lot of the time. It may also damage the legitimacy of moral high ground of certain powerful people, again it is well placed. The benefit is always greater but in a different context. Hate speech does not carry any benefit and is harmful most of the time. I do understand your points but l don't agree with you on most of them.
Is it possible for the government to censor hate speech and protect all other forms of free speech. Yes, it is.
Can the government censor legitimate free speech as the next step , once they censor hate speech. Yes , that's possible too.
That's why its important to know who you are voting for and to always know when the government is crossing the line. The public decides what is hate speech and the government implements restriction on it. That does not happen in a capitalist democracy because the reins of power are controlled by the capitalist. It does not happen in a authoritarian government for reasons obvious. In feudal democracy, as in most developing countries, that does not happen. However there are other possibilities such as socialist democracy where such legal maneuvering manages to preserve freedom of speech.
There are many western countries that do not allow hate speech and still manage to be safe havens for advocates of free speech.
That's why it is important to discuss hate speech. In the present day and age, we can see the rise of right wing political parties in many European countries and USA obviously. I don't think that would be a cause of restrictions placed on hate speeches. I am not saying that right wing politics is primarily linked to hate speeches but they do overlap. This may have been caused by a certain phobia of other cultures and also the negative interactions and the lack of integration from the minority or immigrants but in my opinion human race as a whole will one day cherish freedom of expression and the barriers which cause misunderstandings will be removed. Hate speech originates from a desire to suppress others and freedom of expression desires to liberate the human mind. If hate is lessened and tolerance builds in an ideal society, we may not need to ban hate speech as it would be rare.
I was responding to your indication that speech should not be restricted if it does more good than harm. My point was that whether or not it does harm is not the important thing. It's almost backwards. Except in a limited number of specific cases, It does more harm to restrict speech, even speech we think is vile, than it does to leave it alone.
Quoting Wittgenstein
No it isn't.
Quoting Wittgenstein
You have what I would consider a naive faith in the public. That's why rule of law is important - to limit decision making by public opinion in cases where important rights are at stake.
Quoting Wittgenstein
As I said previously, I won't criticize other countries that find their own ways of protecting speech.
They set the rules (according to the laws of the state they fall under) and enforce them. Other actors exert power to the best of their ability. What does this remind me? Oh, a state!
Quoting T Clark
Didn't you read what I wrote? States decide who has rights. That's the force you're looking for.
Quoting T Clark
This is a business. Businesses are run according to laws. These laws are not directly decided by the businesses. They are decided by states and their lawmakers which are under the influence of various actors. What are we even discussing?
Quoting T Clark
I'm not mixing up anything.
I see. Rules, procedures and protections are not restrictions. Who would have guessed!
You and I are not getting anywhere. I think we're using words to mean different things. Let's leave it at that.
Huh? :brow:
You are criticizing other countries for how they protect free speech, ( which includes banning hate speech) by
specifying it is impossible to ban hate speech and
enforce other forms of free speech.
Americans, in particular, consider freedom of speech to be their freedom to insult. They believe they can say anything at all to anyone, without any kind of comeback or consequence. The man who can't endure it, and is provoked to violence? He must be punished. Even if someone just threatened to rape his 3yo son.
There is nothing to recommend hate speech; it should not be permitted. :roll:
Why would you say that it shouldn't be permitted?
No, I'm not. If I say "If you drop that rock on your sister's head, it will hurt her," it's not criticism, it's a statement of what I see as fact.
I think it's just like this forum. We avoid ad hominem attacks, but otherwise speak (write) freely. That's all this is about: hate speech is an ad hominem attack, and carries no benefit of any sort. No-brainer? :chin:
Between the radical right-wing being free to publicly utter their hate speech and the radical left-wing dictating what can and can't be said by their political opponents, I choose the former. I think that outside of trying to incite violence or targetting races for pointless slandering, banning hate speech becomes very hard. The left will, of course, always say that they're just trying to protect the vulnerable, that's their shtick and it's what they always do. It's easy when you use terms like hate speech but when I hear about what others consider hate speech, I become deeply concerned.
I think that a discussion where the term "hate speech" is banned and you have to actually say precisely what you want to ban would play out in an entirely different way.
I like this idea. Let's make a list of statements that would/should/could be included in hate speech. We'll delete specifics. I don't think the moderators will tolerate some:
Sorry, I can't get the bullets on this list to come out right. I must be doing something wrong with the formatting. Suggestions?
Consequences such as?
Violence, for one example. Maybe the most significant example.
You're claiming that speech causes violence? You don't believe in free will then?
I'm being serious though. Why should something be prohibited if it's not the cause of what you have a problem with?
Indirect causes being further back in the causal chain?
For example, in a Rube Goldberg contraption, setting a billiard ball in a slot causes a level to lower, which causes a chain to move, which causes a lighter to light . . . etc. all the way until we get to a hammer cracking an egg? (So then the billiard ball is an "indirect cause" of the egg cracking?)
Depends. For example, on the philosophy forum, which is a privately owned forum, no. If a neo-nazi is in his own home, he can say whatever he wants, as long as it's not commands to hurt anyone.
Quoting Wittgenstein
Again, it depends on the nature of the speech and where the speech is. Is the speaker commanding or hinting to anyone they should harm anyone? If it's not commands to hurt anyone and it's it's a private platform, then it's all up to the owner.
Quoting Wittgenstein
Some feelings are okay to hurt.
Just my two cents.
I think it's important to make the distinction between what is allowed by society and what is allowed by the government. The term "freedom of speech" as most often used, and as I''m using it here, applies to prevention of government restrictions on speech. In my view, a neo-Nazi should not be restricted by the government from speaking his vile thoughts not just in private, but in public. As you indicated, there are some restrictions on this.
The "huge cost" you are talking about are incurred no matter who's doing the talking and what they're saying. Who paid for the police costs for the Woman's March the day before President Trump's inauguration?
Simpler than that, I think. Either the insults prove unendurable, and the target attacks the speaker, or the words empower and provoke others to commit violence or worse. Gay-bashing, ni**er-bashing, woman-bashing (often called "rape"), and so on. Indirect, but not by much
And no positive aspects, only negative ones. Do You know of anything that is good or beneficial about hate speech? I believe there is no such thing. Can you show me otherwise? :chin:
So again, you don't think that people have to decide whether to attack someone or not, or at least that they do or should have the power to stop themselves from becoming violent?
There is something good and beneficial about not restricting what people say. There is something good and beneficial about letting people decide whether what they say is good and beneficial rather than authorizing the government to do it.
What is meant by "allowed"? I, for instance, think that Death in June has a 'right' to utilize Fascist symbolism in their art, but no 'right' to purpose their shows for the organization of neo-Fascists who intend to 'do harm'. As far as that kind of art goes, I think that neo-Folk got a lot better after Sol Invictus decided to drop the act and do the split with Of the Wand and the Moon. The cult aspect of "Sunspot" is a lot more interesting than banal Fascist goading.
I think that The Damned is a transgressive film that can only be interpreted as being subversive. There is nothing intrinsically subversive about it. You can't censor The Damned, though. Doing so will violate the more privileged 'right' of free speech. It's all just a matter of what effectively makes for a better society. I don't think that banning hate speech will do so.
You, of course, do want to counter that Fascists organize at events. There are lot of different tactics to this, some of which are more effective than others.
Edit: To clarify my point about The Damned: The Damned is a celebration of Nazi decadence that is only marginally intentionally trenchant. Visconti should only be given so much credit as a director. If anyone hasn't seen The Damned, I would highly recommend watching it. In spite of that it is only so subversive, it is one of the best films ever made. I would recommend watching that, and nothing else by the same director. The only reason that Death in Venice was not the longest two hours of my life is because Ludwig goes on for two hours longer.
No, I don't think any of those things. We are human. Humans can be provoked beyond endurance. If Messrs Spock and Data behave otherwise, fair enough, but that's how humans are. Acknowledging our nature, and wishing to avoid conflict where possible, we proscribe hate speech. We do not reproach the target of hate speech for taking offence, any more than we reproach the shooting victim for dirtying the wall with their brain tissue. The person in the wrong is the hate-speaker. The targets of hate are just humans, we accept this, and do not condemn them for it, as it seems you would have me do, from your words above.
"It was her own fault for wearing a skirt that short."
"He should have been able to restrain himself from becoming violent."
"Snowflakes need to toughen up. Wimps!"
No, in all cases. It is not the victim who is at fault, it is the attacker.
So this isn't something we agree on. I believe we have free will and that we can or at least should have the power to stop ourselves from becoming violent.
So you'd have to convince me that we don't have free will or that we don't or shouldn't have the power to stop ourselves from becoming violent.
Yes, there is. I think that's where we get 'freedom of speech' from - we (most of us) think it's a good idea.
Quoting T Clark
There's something very American about this. It's phrased as though the government is some kind of alien power that has been foisted on the general population, as if we'd been invaded and conquered. Not so. Because we cannot all take part in our government, for purely practical reasons, we elect representatives to act on our behalf, and to speak in our names. We are the government; the government is us.
As to the actual point you make here: yes, I agree. But (some) humans are given to hate speech, and their targets are (sometimes) unable to endure the hatred aimed at them, and respond with violence. We can confirm this by simple empirical observation. So, if we wish to avoid the violence (as a social species surely must) we have a choice. We can stop the hate-speakers or we can stop their targets. The judgement of most people is that the former is more appropriate. So that's what we do: we ban hate speech.
Freedom of speech still exists, of course, as it should, but it explicitly does not include the freedom to insult. It's exactly like banning ad hominem attacks here on TPF. It doesn't prevent discussion, only conflict. So while it would be great to allow complete freedom of speech, we (humans) have decided that we aren't able to deal with that privilege in a way that we find acceptable. So we specifically ban hate speech.
Aren't you confusing ought with is here? :chin: Empirical evidence demonstrates clearly and unambiguously that your expectation is not met by real humans in the real world. If we ever transcend this aspect of our nature, we can return to your aspirations then, OK? :wink:
Quoting Terrapin Station
Look around at real humans in the real world. There you will find conclusive and unmistakeable evidence to convince you, so I don't need to bother. Job done. :smile:
Free speech doesn't amount to much if it doesn't include people being able to say things that you'd really rather they didn't say, things that make you very uncomfortable, upset, etc.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Yes, but you don't observe that the responders didn't have a choice in how they responded.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
?? "or at least should" is just an ought. What "is" does it seem to you like I'm confusing it with?
Please don't dilute the offending concept to make it look like something innocuous. We aren't talking about banning the discussion of uncomfortable subjects. There are no subjects that cannot be courteously discussed.
But there are attacks that no reasonable person is expected to tolerate: hate speech. Hate speech has no semantic content. Its only effect - its intended effect - is to cause so much hurt as to provoke a violent response.
Please do not conflate hate speech with subjects that might be uncomfortable to discuss. They are quite distinct; they have no commonalities; comparing them does not result in a justification for hatred.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Your "ought" is that we "should have the power to stop ourselves from becoming violent". But the corresponding "is" is that we can't. The empirical evidence is conclusive. Do you deny this?
P.S. why do you focus only on the victims? :chin:
Why have you not (also) said "I believe we have free will and that we can or at least should have the power to stop ourselves from spouting hate speech"? :chin:
You write like someone who values the freedom to speak hatefully toward others. :chin: Maybe even someone who enjoys speaking hatefully toward others? :scream:
They're divided by the word "or."
"I'm going to buy a house in Wyoming or Utah"--that's not saying that I'm confusing Wyoming with Utah is it?
Sure, people can do that. But there's nothing wrong with hate speech, or any speech. It doesn't CAUSE violence. People choose to be violent, just like they choose to utter hate speech if they do.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Yes, that's definitely the case. I value the freedom of people to be able to say/express anything imaginable.
Maybe you could try to understand points of view that you're not familiar with?
Then I have nothing further to say to you.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
What's to stop anyone from parsing any arbitrary speech that way?--as something that "no reasonable person should be expected to tolerate"?
Quoting Pattern-chaser
There's no utterance where any specific intent can be guaranteed, and there's no utterance where the intent might not be to cause so much hurt as to provoke a violent response. So intent were the motivator, you'd not be able to blanketly allow or ban any particular utterances.
Could you please say such comments a little less bluntly? :joke:
I value the freedom for others to speak hatefully towards others.
So I imagine you support the (sometime) consequences too? Rape, queer-bashing, black-lynching, Jew-bashing, .... :sad:
Pattern Chaser, I really hope that you do not believe that just because a person that is in favor of free speech, that they are by default a person who believes in acts of violence. If you do than please let me know because in most cases you are mistaken. I may not like what a neo Nazi has to say but I won't stop him from saying it. I will also express my opinions to him and do expect the same respect to my voice.
The use of words can get messy and someone said that the pen is mighter than the first. Stifling people's verbal expression only leads to those feeling oppressed to act out nonverbally.
I am not sure about you but I much prefer verbal communication over nonverbal, at least when we are talking about angry/hate speech.
No, I'm a person who believes that those who support, nurture and encourage hatred and hate speech, must realise that their actions incite violence. And they should take responsibility for that.
In the UK, some years ago, we had a real problem with terrorism in Northern Ireland (and on the UK mainland too). We learned that the violence would not stop - could not be stopped - while there was a substantial part of the community that supported those who acted with violence. Even though those supporters did not plant bombs themselves, their support convinced the bombers that the community supported and approved of what they were doing. Only when that stopped, and an agreed settlement was in place, did the violence stop.
If one supports and encourages the violent, one must take some responsibility for that violence.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Yes, of course. But my aim here is to minimise or stop violence. Inciting it via hate speech goes directly against this aim, so I oppose it.
You're conflating speech and things like rape and bombings. For some odd reason you can't see the distinction between speech and other actions.
Words only have the impact that you allow them to have on you. Only YOU are in control of what you say and I am the only one that can control my response, neither of us can do anything more about any one else's choice.
No amount of extreral pressure to silence a voice seeking to be heard will last indefinitely.
In my experience, violence (nonverbal communication) comes from people feeling like their concerns are not being validated and their voices not heard. Telling me that I cannot express how I feel is quite infuriating to me. How does someone telling you what you can and cannot say feel to you?
Not allowing personal expression of feeling's for the sake of keeping the masses settled sounds rather controlling. Who decided what "hate speech" is in the UK? What is the plan for the evolution of speech and how words are deemed as hateful?
Per his comments above, he doesn't believe that it's possible to control one's response, at least in some situations.
“Sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me”
We don’t need to make it illegal for people to hurt other peoples feelings with their words. Grow up.
Thats at the level of government and law.
On a personal or moral level...grow up.
Thats how far things have fallen, we have to aim for the philosophy meant for children.
:up:
As far as I can tell, @Pattern-chaseris describing an "is", while @Terrapin Station, @ArguingWAristotleTiff, and @DingoJones are talking about an "ought".
I can agree that people SHOULD not be bothered by words. But the fact is that most people ARE (whether 'most' is 51% or 91% may be debatable).
Humans are emotional beings. In High School, my friends and I had an unspoken game of "see who can make the others mad using only words". The 'loser' is the one who gets upset...and if you can make the other person tackle you or swing at you, you are the champion...and everyone else laughs at the emotional person. What did we learn? Well 3 of us (out of about 8 or ten) would not show emotion in response to anything (I am not saying for sure no emotions were felt). Most everyone else had a 'trigger'. For some, all it takes is suggesting their mom has a few promiscuous habits. For others, you can just bring up some girl they like. The point being, more than our random insults, I can easily see comments that basically say "you and everyone like you are inferior scum that has nothing to offer society" being a 'trigger' for some people.
We SHOULD not be bothered by words, but we SHOULD also never resort to violence, right? But I never hear that we should remove assault laws, because people should know better??
If 'the data' shows that people respond to 'hate speech' with violence, then what is the easiest way to stop that violence?
First, speech can not literally cause the violent reaction. If that were the case, then people would not be able to hear the speech without having a violent reaction.
Some people might not be able to control themselves very well in the way they react to speech. But the problem in that case is their lack of control. They'd need to work on that.
Conflating? No, I don't think so. I'm connecting the two. Causally-connecting.
Conflating because you're jumping from support of free speech to support of bombings, for example, as if there's no distinction between the two.
A general consensus, I think. Maybe not. I don't know the factual answer to your question, sorry.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would wish to protect hate speech. Nearly every nation in the world happily bans murder, but inciting others to commit murder is OK. After all, the murderer should be able to control themselves; how could the hate-speaker possibly bear any responsibility? And yet we know, pragmatically, confirmed by empirical observation, that many murderers can't control themselves. These are not exceptionally weak-willed people, they're just human beings like the rest of us.
We know, confirmed by empirical observation, that any utterance telling someone to murder someone else doesn't cause anyone to murder anyone else, because the utterances are made and the murders are not made. If the utterance was causal, that couldn't be the case. Something else has to be the cause.
No I'm not. Those who defend unconstrained free speech must allow hate speech. Hate speech incites others to violence. An (admittedly extreme) example of such violence is the bombing of civilians.
There is a clear "distinction", to use your words. More clearly, there is a clear progression in the reasoning. Free speech allows hate speech; hate speech incites violence (violence that actually occurs); therefore support for unconstrained free speech supports and encourages violence.
Hate speech doesn't cause violence. So supporting hate speech isn't supporting violence.
The recent El Paso shooter confirmed his intended targets were "Hispanics", and his actions followed hate speech from the POTUS directed against them. The connection cannot be proven, of course. That isn't possible. But it's a desperately sad coincidence, if that's what it is.
"Cause" isn't "sometimes."
If the utterance is causal to the action, then when the utterance is made, the action is going to occur.
I don't follow daily politics very much. What speech was this?
Then you're not talking about causality.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Which means that the cause isn't the speech, but something else. Something about the person in question.
There are a lot of things that would minimize violence that I wouldn't be at all in favor of. These things include:
* Not allowing people to leave their homes,
* Stopping and frisking everyone in public, whenever they enter a store, etc.
* Not allowing motor vehicles
Etc.
Could it not be, rather, that you are not talking about single causes?
I spray a strong allergen over a high school. Not everyone gets hives but many do. Could my action be considered immoral and causal`? Could the defense argue that it was caused by the immune system responses and not the allergen? At what percentage of rashes would my action no longer considered causal? Like it it's ten percent is it now really just their idiosyncratic reactions? We could switch to toxins with worse effects.
Exactly right. Pretending speech causes the movement of matter is essentially to believe in sorcery.
Why is it illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater (when there's no fire).`?
And then of course speech moves matter. Waves in the air, vibrations in the inner ear. Changes in the neurons in the other person's brain. Startle responses. People following orders. People being told directions, including wrong ones. Hearing bad news. Hearing good news. Getting a compliment. In all instances matter is being moved by speech. Heck even my humble words on the screen are moving matter as you read.
That's a good question that would be interesting to research historically--the roots of the belief that speech can be to blame in situations like that.
I can't see how speech isn't causal in that situation. (though there is potential energy and keyed in concepts that also contribute to the effects)
I think we could devise an illegal experiment. Shouting duck or fire or rape or bomb in various locations and then having control tests in similar location types, to see if speech is causal.
Blame is a different concept. Though there are many situations where I would blame people for saying certain things that I would consider having led to certain consequences: perjury, false witness in general, false rumors, true rumors, people betraying confidence, parents insulting children, threats......
If it's causal, then no matter who is hearing it, they need to react in the relevant way. Otherwise we need to account for the difference.
Could you make the statement that I think is implicit in this...I would guess it is something like:
If something does not affect everyone the same way or the specific way at issue it is not causal. But if that's not the right implicit statement, let me know what is.
Is maleria causal in the deaths of those who do die of maleria even if others survive? Does something have to be the only factor to be causal? Or the aids virus in aids?
Could we blame someone for giving someone the aids virus, like intnetionally with a dirty needle as a weapon, say, even though not all who get the virus die or even get sick?
Or my spraying of allergens or toxins example a couple of posts back. Or what I said about blame in the previous post.
If we're specifying the cause if x, we need to list everything that deterministically produced x.
For one, in saying that speech is causal to some action, we're denying that the people who performed the action in question had free will--that they had any choice in how they acted. This would amount to saying that the soundwaves in question had a physical effect on the person so that, in combination with the other physical factors that we'd need to specify, they were literally forced to perform the action in question. That's what causality is.
A little historical information will help. There have been very bad fires in theaters, night clubs, and the like, resulting in very large losses of life. When someone smells smoke, sees the flames, etc. and sounds the alarm, people will all bolt for the door. No singledoorway can accommodate more than 3 or 4 people at a time. If 500 people try to get through a doorway at once, they will compact, trample and kill some people, and become an interlocked mass. If there is smoke and fire and many people, it is practically guaranteed that a good many will die where they are standing.
Similar disasters have happened at soccer and rugby matches, when for some reason people stampeded for the exits which were not wide enough to allow a mass of people to move through. In those cases, the deaths were from being crushed under foot and suffocating.
Sometimes doors have been criminally locked or bolted shut, and then the loss of life was even worse.
So, walking into a theater where there is no fire and yelling "FIRE!" is likely to lead to a stampede which will probably result in at least a few deaths, for which the person yelling "FIRE!" would be responsible.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
I agree with you that speech can incite others to act. It isn't as simple as me saying "Kill Bill" and you rushing out and shooting Bill in the head. The El Paso murderer claimed that he intended to kill hispanics, and he did. I'll take him at his word that he did what he wished and intended to do. Whether or not the El Paso murderer committed his crimes because he listened to one, two, several, or more speeches by Trump can not be proven, as you say. DT has attacked several groups repeatedly, and a lot of people get shot, so it's a bit difficult to disentangle one shooting from another.
Trump hasn't said anything as directive as King Henry II, "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" which inspired the murder of Thomas à Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170. It's also not quite as inflammatory as "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2. And it wasn't the King who said it. It was the character "Dick". Henry wouldn't have been helped by killing all the lawyers. Most kings and hip POTUS must needs all the legal help they can get.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not first amendment standard any longer. That’s a common misconception. The current standard is “immanent lawless action”.
Yes, speaking moves air, but you’d have to show how one combination of articulated guttural sounds can manipulate air differently than any other.
Just to be sure, the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” analogy was never law, but an analogy. The case in which the Judge (Oliver Wendell Holmes) used the analogy was overturned over 40 years ago.
Do you think death threats/threats of physical violence/extortion should be legal?
Should adults be allowed to say anything they want to children?
Allowed by whom?
Government. Should there be laws regulating what adults can say to kids, or does anything go?
There are some laws against making indecent proposals to children. Should there be? I read in a book that people are stupid, so there probably have to be laws to deal with stupid people.
I didn't say anything about the first ammendment. i was talking about speech moving people/matter. I didn't know it was first A before. I gave some other examples in other posts above of speech moving matter. Duck, heads up, rape, bomb, will all make people move. Even if that last one screamed at an airport doesn't fool a lot of people, men in blue will move and then move you to a little room.
'Grybhshalabhagbh'
and then
'Your father's home from Iraq and waiting in the backyard'
each said in low tones to the guy's kids. Adn then all the other examples.
Words have meaning. People hear that meaning in speech and this causes all sort of things to happen if the right words are chosen. Or the wrong words.
Spies telling lies.
Powell telling people he had a photo of WOMD. Think of all the matter that contributed to moving around.
Hitler moved incredible amounts of matter via speaking.
Call a school with a bomb threat.
A woman tells a man she's pregnant. (and at least in the past this often led to marriages and people moving to new places to live)
Callin the police and using certain words.
The fire department.
Artillary group commanders words
The orders of a nuclear sub captain.
The speech will all end up moving different amounts of air, cause the bodies that change direction or take action or bombs will all move air. If moving air is the criterion we are out after.
We've got laws on the books for this all over the place: conspiracy laws, incidement to riot, slander, perjury and more. Most of these laws are related to changes in the placement of matter and since you can be called into court for them, lead to movement in your matter.
Lying in court could move someone into prison. As can telling the truth.
I appreciate you expanding though I wish you'd work with the other examples, and then move this over to blame, which you brought up and I can see why.
Someone goes around at work and tells people you are a pedophile. He chooses people who don't know you so well. He does this using social media also. Could it never be the case that you would blame him for consequences? Consider his behavior was one of the causes of unpleasance for you? One of the causes? Other people's gullibility and liking for gossip, predisposition to judge...ets. were all factors also. But could you imagine blaming him? Reporting it as a crime? suggesting a boss fire him? See it as an action with bad effects and as such as a cause, even though other people also bear some responsibility?
Perjury - would not force a jury to convict, but in amongst other factors could be, I think, argued to be causal.
Screaming bomb at an airport that leads to injury. Can we not argue that is causal, even if most of the people either reacted blase or ran in a careful manner, but one person ran over your child while running to get outside. Could we not blame the screamer for causing your child pain?
Can we say smoking causes lund cancer? This example and other medical type ones are focused on the issue of a variety of results in individuals.
Must it be the only cause? What percentage of effectiveness must it have?
And note: even if you concede some of these points, it does not mean that hate specch is necessarily something that should be illegal. I was reacting to what you and others were arguing against it being treated as causal. I think there is swing room still to be covered.
I just think you are presenting too limited a version of causality and also of when most of us would assign blame. I think there are more steps necessary before we preclude hate speech laws being irrational or problematic.
So I'll just address a couple things. I don't mind going back to the others, but one thing at a time until we're done with it so that it doesn't have to come up again:
Quoting Coben
That's correct. Any actions by others in response to his saying that I'm a pedophile wouldn't be caused by him. Thus he's not to blame for those actions.
Quoting Coben
I would never do any of that stuff. I'm a free speech absolutist, and that includes that I'd not make slander/libel illegal or want it socially pressured away a la firing someone, etc.
The society we need is one where people don't believe something just because someone says it. Making slander/libel illegal doesn't lead to that society.
We konw, confirmed by empirical observation, that any pulling of the trigger of a loaded gun that is pointing at someone doesn't cause anyone to die, because the trigger is pulled and the person being pointed to doesn't die (sometimes). If pulling the trigger was causal, that couldn't be the case. Something else has to be the cause. Therefore pulling the trigger of a loaded gun pointing at someone is ok because it doesn't cause any harm.
I don't really have an opinion I care to share on this topic (because it's not well developed or supported and I don't care to develop or support it) but I'm just saying that this way of arguing seems very useless when you ask "Should X be allowed". The answer is always going to be yes.
I'd have a category of criminal threatening, but it would have pretty specific criteria:
Threatening anyone should only be a crime when it's an immediate, "physical" threat in the sense of potential victims being within the range of the threatening instruments (whether just one's body, or weapons, or causally connected remote devices or substances, etc.), which are actual and not simply claimed, so that (a) either a verbal (or written, etc.) or body language threat is explicitly made, (b) the threat is reasonably considered a serious premeditation to commit nonconsensual violence, and (c) the threatened party couldn't reasonably escape or evade the threatened actions should the threatener decide to carry them out at that moment.
We know that it causes them to die when it does, because the causal chain is easily peggable. We've been through this already, by the way. So I'm not going to explain it in detail to you again.
When what "does"?
You can't possibly not be able to understand pronoun usage to that extent.
I don't like arguing. You want to argue. You're not interested enough in understanding other views to bother reading them, thinking about them, etc.
In the situation at hand, we can peg the causes. See--this is an example. I said this already.
And if someone claims that murdering someone is causally peggable to hate speech why would they be wrong? In both cases the result isn't necessarily caused by the cause you're trying to peg it to
Show the work. Specify the causal chain. If there is one they're not wrong. But we have to be able to show the causal chain.
Impossible in the case of hate speech, because not only is free will the case, but as folks keep telling us in other threads, apparently we can't "explain" physicalism--mind/brain identity. If we can't do that, how would we show a causal physical chain for something like hate speech?
Quoting khaled
Sure. People believe all sorts of things that are incorrect. Religious beliefs are one of the biggest examples, but there are tons of different examples.
Neurology. Sounds are physical, neurolgical reactions to them are physical
Quoting Terrapin Station
Why are they incorrect. You can't say with absolute certainty that we won't one day with enough advancements in neurology be able to peg said causal chain.
You'd be claiming that mind isn't involved in other words?
Quoting khaled
That seems like a dumb question. They get wrong what the world is like.
Yes. You can't know it is impossible to causally peg the physical sound to physical reactions
Quoting Terrapin Station
You seem to have completely missed the remainder of the sentence.
You're using "know" in the sense of certainty. It's a mistake to use it that way.
Aside from that, so in addition to needing to show the causal chain, you'd need to show that mind isn't involved now, too.
If you CAN show the causal chain then the mind isn't involved. Unless the "mind" is a literal muscle or neuron.
Quoting Terrapin Station
No I'm not but I agree it would be a mistake to use it that way.
The mind IS identical to a subset of brain functions, yes.
Is this a Daniel Dennett thing?
No, not at all. Dennett arguably claims that consciousness is an "illusion" (ignoring whether that claim makes any sense).
Ok, fair enough. It certainly is possible to be consistent on the issue and you seem to be. You must consider a fairly wide range of policies, laws and regulation to be wrong. Employers giving false negative references, slander and libel laws you covered, screaming 'bomb' at the airport, false reporting of crimes, lying about income to the IRS - this might be seen positively to someone who might be a libertarian in other ways - ( And presumably even at the organizational level frees speech would hold: The New York Times can print what it likes even if untrue.) Does this absolutism hold for contractual type situations? - doctors/psychologists breaching patient/doctor confidentiality, company product secrets, - and then similar situations like what would be considered perjury?
I'm a libertarian in many ways, although a socialist in other ways (mostly economic/social structure centered on economic concerns, etc.) . . . so that I'm a very idiosyncratic sort of "libertarian socialist" where I'm the only person I'm aware of with the socio-political views I have.
And yeah, I disagree with a lot of laws, mores, etc.--to a point where it's extremely frustrating to me to pay much attention to the news, which is why normally I do not, so normally I don't know much about what's going on in day-to-day politics.
I'm in favor of contractual law, but that's not a speech issue--it's a matter of actions that one is or isn't performing that one agreed to perform, and where others actions were contingent on the pledge of those actions being/not being performed.
Yelling "bomb"? Yes, I'd not have that be illegal.
OK, and is this because it is approaching newtonian types of causality. IOW statistically high chance that people will behave in certain ways that we don't want them to for not reason?
If it's a subset of physical functions and those physical functions are either deterministic or random then where is the free will? probably better on the other thread
Sorry, what? ;-) That second sentence doesn't make sense to me.
Sorry. I'll just shift it to a question. How come the bomb utterance is an exception to free speech? And, I certainly get the specific problems that come up with yelling 'bomb'. The answer I am looking for is related to a general rule for exceptions to absolute free speech. Why is free will no longer an issue in this case?
I said I wouldn't make that illegal.
I'm presuming you accept the principle of joint causal responsibility? That if more than one factor jointly causes a consequence then each factor can be rightly said to bear some responsibility for it?
If so, then I'm struggling to see how you're supporting your position without invoking magical woo (which lawmakers rightly try to avoid).
If a person says "kill all Jews" and the context or circumstances lead me to believe that is the right thing to do, and if that belief then leads me to kill a jew, all of that mental causal chain must have been physical right? Neurons acting on other neurons. Without invoking some woo, that's all we've got to explain it.
So I don't understand how that is any different from the physical chain that can be seen between pulling a trigger, causing a bullet to leave a gun, to enter a person, to rupture an organ and to thereby kill them. We have no trouble attributing their death to the person who pulled the trigger. None of the stages necessarily leads to the other (the bullet could get jammed, it might miss etc) but the chain of events is physical.
So with hate speech, it might not necessarily lead to violence (just as pulling the trigger might not necessarily lead to the victim's death), but the role it plays in the mental chain of events must be no less physical, otherwise you have a huge burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of this non-physical element of decision making.
Yes, there should be no law regarding speech. But that doesn’t mean adults should be allowed to abuse children. Parents should immediately remove their child from any situation of verbal abuse, bullying etc.
What if you heard a word from a language you do not understand? It’s a word, it has meaning, but it could only cause confusion. Did the word cause confusion, or was it your lack of knowledge that did it?
Bad idea or not, one is free to do so, and we should refrain from perpetuating that myth.
Sure they could, but they could not.
There are a bunch of videos of Christopher Hitchens yelling fire in the venues in which he was giving a speech. He did this to illustrate the fatuity of Holmes’ “yelling fire” dictum.
Yeah I think it is unwise to yell fire in a crowded theater. My only contention was the legality of it.
But also, the dictum is used in the service of censorship, so I think some opposition to it might be necessary.
Laws are made by people. If the people think this is serious enough, and they find that awkward bastards ignore it, they turn it into a law. Such is their right. Your preference is valid, but the will of the people, expressed in their laws, overrule you if you're in their country/tribal area, etc.
Of course that’s true. But that doesn’t mean they’re right, and that’s why we refrain from appealing to popularity.
I think the opposite, that to believe we cannot operate a human society free from censorship is naive, if not dogmatism.
Actually, and in practice, it does. The people of a tribe or nation may create laws as they wish, and they are "right" to do so. The laws they create apply only to themselves, and to those who choose to visit them. Americans are insane to allow (enforce?) gun ownership, but they are the ones who suffer all the shootings, so it's difficult to say they're "wrong". All we can do, form outside their borders and their society, is to sympathise, and not to allow guns in our own countries. There are a million other examples.
Your idea of rightness, and the way you express it, sounds like you are promoting the One and Only Truth in these matters, and I don't think you are. There is no universal 'right' in this case.
I said it doesn’t mean that they are right, not that they are wrong. For instance slavery was permitted by law. Were they right to do so?
Holy moley.
I'm all in favor of resisting the censors and their wishes to silence people. You can find much better examples of censorship vs. freedom of speech than defending the rather weak, alleged "right" to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. How about banned books? The Great Gatsby, Catcher in the Rye, Grapes of Wrath, or To Kill a Mockingbird... How about bans on teaching evolution (not in 1924, but in the present year)? The right to discuss organizing a union among fellow workers?
Well the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” analogy was used to justify the censorship of socialists handing out pamphlets criticizing the draft. They were convicted. This is a prime example of censorship of the worst kind.
What about calling in bomb threats to schools? Should that be legal?
I would actually start at the other end. Let's make it safe for the most vulnerable at the same time extremely important free speech like whisteblowers. It is actually getting worse for whistelblowers. Obama was terrible about them. Businesses have even more options now. The media are more centralized which can make it harder to find a solid outlet willing to protect the whisteblower.
From my point of view, and probably yours too, they would be wrong. From *their* point of view, it would be right. Societies set their own laws, as they should, yes?
Although the only way such laws change is via people in the society in question not agreeing with them.
So we don't have 100% control over our beliefs or mores, they are at least partly caused by other factors, but we do have 100% control over our responses to the speech of others. Unless you have some psychological evidence I'm lacking, it sounds suspiciously like you're designing your personal psychological theories around getting the results you want, rather than working from an empirical basis.
I think we have pretty good arguments as to why they were wrong, and pretty bad arguments as to why they were right. Societies set their own laws, but those laws can still be right or wrong, for instance Nuremberg laws, blasphemy laws, laws punishing sorcery—there are very good reasons as to why they are wrong, with very poor reasons as to why they are right.
Yep.
It also seems like a slippery slope, because what falls under the umbrella of hate speech is not just subjective, but tied to culture, which makes it malleable. This creates a potential exploit for those using the system to further their own agendas.
A better option would be to use one's own freedom of speech to challenge and undermine hate speech because it is validation that emboldens people to act upon it.
What is truly needed though, is to analyze what brings people to the kind of mindsets that would feel hate speech is justified, and take corrective action. That kind of nonsense is the stuff that is cultivated from formative years, i.e. Home/upbringing.
Quoting Necrofantasia
These are both empirical statements, not philosophical ones. Whether there is a correlation between hate speech and violence is an empirical fact, in my opinion too obvious to even counter, but if you wish to counter it, doing so would require empirical evidence.
Say there is a causal correlation. Allowing hate speech would cause violent harm to come to people. Don't you think we need a little more than your ad hoc 'reckon' about whether there is a link, given the nature of the harm that would arise were we to presume not?
Quoting Necrofantasia
How can it be the case both that we know violence is not caused by hate speech, and that the causes of hateful mindsets still require analysis? What is it about the state of psychology do you think, that has resulted in certainty about the causes of violence, but not the causes of hateful speech acts?
Correlation and causation are different things. Is exposure to hate speech all it takes for individuals to start hating groups of people to the point of engaging in violence ? Or are there other factors at play that create a predisposition to social enmity? (i.e. Economic uncertainty, lack of alternative explanations lack of adequate education, indoctrination from childhood, cultural precedents, group pressure etc.) If you Need something in place of censorship to avert violence, maybe looking at those factors would produce better results.
If you wish to censor hate speech in a specific social group because you don't want the discussions it begets or want to avoid potential conflict or association with hate groups, it's an entirely different story. But to have legal sanction on speech pertaining to ideology is a slippery slope that could result in power abuse by governments. Sheltering via censorship may address the symptoms, but education via public rejection and discourse would be the equivalent of exposing mold to sunlight.
Both violence and hate speech are caused by adoption of hate-based narratives that attribute responsibility for perceived ills or slights to groups of people. Meaning the source isn't strictly psychological, it is also sociological. All you would do by censoring hate speech is eliminate indicators that point to the systemic factors in need of correction, which could hinder societal progress in the long term.
An anti-point in case is the Hungarian Revolution and War of Independence of 1848. The revolution started (ie. was triggered, not caused) by a poem by Sandor Petofi, who went out to the main square of Pest and recited his poem. It was so full of nationalistic encouragement, that people went home, grabbed their muskets and daggers and intercontinental nuclear missile launcher silos, and ousted the hapless Hapsburgh governor.
The fact that you have to ask these questions (rather than simply provide me with empirical evidence of the answers) means that it is possible that the correlation we observe is causal. If there were no such possibility, we would have ready access to the empirical evidence refuting such an hypothesis.
So, to re-iterate my question. Given that there remains the possibility that the correlation we observe is causal, would it not recklessly risk the wellbeing of those potential victims for us to proceed as if the correlation were not causal simply on the grounds that it might not be?
I'm not sure why you're addressing this comment to me as I've clearly indicated that I already think the correlation between hate speech and violence is unarguable.
What is at issue here is the degree to which it is causative. I don't think we have direct and unequivocal evidence that hate speech causes violent actions, and what evidence we do have does not establish the extent of it's role relative to other factors.
I am, however, arguing that in the absence of evidence, we are better taking a precautionary position rather than taking an absolutist one as if the evidence were already conclusive.
This is why I included you in the list. You are a black wolf in white sheeps' clothing. You are undermining, or trying to, huge empirical evidence, by downplaying the effect.
I said enough. To those who advocate the return of unrestricted hate speech to society, i have only one message for you: go fuck yourselves.
And yet right and wrong are relative to who they refer to. What's right for me, a tuberculosis bacterium, is wrong for you, a human with damaged lungs. Societies set their own laws, and they are always 'right' by definition. Societies do not set laws that are wrong for them. In time, they may amend their laws, if it proves that they are not optimal for their purpose(s).
Societies are like nature in the proverb: red in tooth and claw. They don't play well with others. They do what they want without regard to others. And they're too big to argue with, so we don't. Societies are sociopaths. :chin: :gasp:
I wholeheartedly agree with this. You don't specifically target hate speech, but the meaning is there: some soiceties approve of it, some disapprove, so you just have to roll with the flow. This is true. In our society hate speech is disallowed, and that's that, you say, as "that's that" applies to all rules of any society.
Anything can be right or wrong in the sense of society's morals. By society's morals I mean those moral behaviour forms, which are encouraged by a particular society, independent of the individual person's own interest.
So from society's point of view, there are no society-created and maintained "WRONG" rules. The wrongness is only established by an individual whose interest or else whose moral feeling or attitude disagrees with the so-called MORAL rule pushed and advocated by society.
That sounds like a pretty hateful bit of speech at the end (when you tell me to go fuck myself) you clueless douche, better be careful lest someone read that and be causally forced to commit violence.
What a joke.
your points were well made, just ignore these self righteous retards advocating that hate speech causes violence, they just havent thought it through and are reacting emotionally.
You mother-fucking cunt, you go fuck yourself. Right now. Pronto.
You can hate me, and you can express it on these pages. And I can hate you, and I expressed on these pages that I do, and there is nothing wrong with that. The wrongness starts when we would entice others to hate the other along with our personal hatred.
. . . that's just evidence of not understanding how I use the word "cause."
You gave no explanation as to its specific meaning. Why do you blame me for that?
Now I'm going to contradict myself, just a little. For although societies do as they wish, their 'minds' can be changed by their component 'cells' (us). In my country, we are considering changing our law on cannabis, but we haven't got there yet. So our laws remain severe and in place. But if enough of us become convinced, our society (which is ourselves, considered and acting collectively) will change. ... But only when it wants to, and on its own terms! :up:
Causes are physically deterministic forces, where, if A is the cause of B, B must follow A, ceteris paribus.
A poor joke, I suggest. Your wish to demean the 'snowflakes' has lead you to write nonsense. The provocation in your words is aimed specifically at @god must be atheist. There is no reason at all why anyone else should be affected by them.
Oh, and "causally forced violence" is a deliberate distortion on your part, I think, to further demean the argument you despise. Too much emotion, I think, and too little philosophy. IMO, of course.
Thank you for the explanation.
So I don't consider Hitler to have caused anyone's death. (Insofar as I know, at least. I have no idea if Hitler himself ever killed anyone directly, but I'd say his utterances did not.)
And yet (some of) those to whom those utterances were directed did kill people, or have them killed. Was that coincidence? :chin:
You don't buy free will?
So what are your rules for acceptable expressions of hate and not? If when telling one person you hate them you justifiy it and others can see this, could this not incite hatred in others? Likewise with groups?What makes a communication of hatred one that incites others? Is it labeling them a certain way? Playing to the gallery?
Okay, I'll disregard your future comments. If you are so stupid as to not notice the causation between Hitler's speeches to the Reichstag and to the people of Germany, his book "Mein Kampf" and the ensuing Nazi rule, then I have no hope of ever getting through to you.
Say what you will, I will not read your comments.
You are asking questions as if we were still in the pre-postmodernism era.
But, as you still have not answered, you've eliminated joint cause. For a carburettor to 'cause' the motion of an engine, it requires both fuel input and air input. Are you suggesting that the motion of an engine has no cause simply because one of that pair alone does not necessarily cause the motion?
So stupid. The early morning hour has robbed me of my good sense and Im actually responding to a clueless douche. Or is it his magical words, forcing me to action?!
Anyway, I do not hate you I just think you are a fool on this topic. You think I could force people to commit violence against you by talking about how much you deserve it or telling them to go do it. Nonsense.
You think the lesson of Nazi Germany was that hate speech is evil and should be banned?
You think when they say “never again”, they are talking about Hitlers fucking speeches?! Your self righteousness is blinding you. Do some research for christs sake.
You think holocaust survivors think back and say “if only Hitler hadnt said those hateful incitements”? Maybe they would, but not before they said “if only all those people hadnt rounded us up into camps and systematically exterminated us”.
No, the lesson, the “never again” is in following a madman, in allowing his derangement to become their derangement. The German people who took part our responsible for their own actions, not the hate speech they heard.
Clueless, cuz you don’t really know what you are talking about AND haven't thought it all the way through, and a douche because thats the term I use to describe people that are aggressively self righteous. So I wasnt just insulting you, I was also being very, very accurate. In contrast, all you can muster up was some directed swear words which aren’t even insulting. Pathetic. You aren’t even a worthy adversary.
The problem wasnt hate speech. It was the abolishment of free speech that allowed a particular ideology to gain hold and fester in the German mindset. When you outlaw Free Speech you outlaw free thinking. When you have no power to speak out against what is being said then that is how hate speech becomes violence by whole culture against another.
So, not only should hate speech be allowed but reasonable speech that argues against the emotion of hate speech should be allowed and not prohibited. Allowing certain hate speech and then preventing free speech is how hate speech becomes violence on the scale of nations.
You are asking for parameters to define a concept as if those parameters could be established for sure. Well, some parameters of values expressed by language can't be established. For instance, "life" is undefineable in its essence; so is "good", and so on.
To ask me to define the parameters of the precise division between hate speech and non-hate speech is a tall order. I can tell one when I see one; but I can't possibly provide you with a precise, unfailing, and perfect conceptual definition of such.
As I've pointed out at least four or five times in recent weeks, influence and causality are NOT the same thing.
I read this...
Quoting god must be atheistAnd it led me to ask how you (and from there how one) would distinguish between speech that expresses hate - which you think is fine - and speech that incites other to hate - which you do not think is fine.
If you use your intuition and cannot further define your position, fine.
If you think it's causation in the sense that I accept that term, you could try to demonstrate the physical causal chain.
I did address that. The cause of C can be A and B. The cause of C isn't A in that case. It has to be A and B. A alone might never result in B. So in that case A isn't the cause of B.
If someone wants to claim that speech in conjunction with this and that and whatever causes some action, that's fine. Show all of the work. Show the entire cause or the entire causal chain.
"The sound waves from the utterance enter S's ear, and then . . ." well, then what? Show the work.
I may be wrong, but I'd bet no-one here has even mentioned hate speech being the cause of violence, so your claim that A alone is not the cause of C is not an answer. The claim is that hate speech causes violence. Nowhere in that claim is the statement that is is the sole cause.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Why must the burden of proof fall on those making the null hypothesis. We see a correlation between hate speech and violence again and again. We have no other mechanism than neurological processes to explain the link.
It is you here that is making the more outlandish claim that speech does not affect our actions by any physical process. That our actions are, rather, motivated by some magical Non-physical force, so it's quite normal to expect that you should bear the burden of proof.
:lol::up:
You're seriously not familiar with "correlation does not imply causation"?
Of course correlation implies causation. The expression is that correlation is not causation. Ie the one is not necessarily the other. Are you seriously suggesting that repeated correlation implies nothing whatsoever? How on earth do you think science has progressed this far if every correlation were treated as if it implied no causal link?
Lol, no it doesn't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Does Hitler’s speeches incite you to hatred or violence? Hitler’s speeches incite me to the opposite, actually, to the hatred of Hitler.
Nazi censorship, which suppressed anything that dissented from their sordid ideology, created one of worst information ecosystems.
Weimar Germany had fairly strong hate speech laws, even by today’s standards. Hate speakers, including the editor of Dur Sturmer, were jailed on numerous occasions. It made them martyrs. Little good hate speech laws did.
As I said, how do you suppose scientific knowledge progresses if correlation is not taken to imply the possibility of causation. Do you suppose that scientists investigate a random set of possible causes to establish what the particular cause of some event is? Or do you suppose rather, that they investigate first those possible causes with which there is some correlation with the event? If the former, you clearly have no idea how scientific investigation works, if the latter, then correlation must at least imply the possibility of causation, over and above those candidate causes for which there is no correlation.
If you want to quibble over the word 'imply' and the strength of deduction it carries then you'll have to find someone else to argue semantics with. It's abundantly clear that I'm arguing that the correlation is something about which we must form a view. The common scientific process is that correlations are significant and worth persuing as possible signs of causation. Whilst that is happening (and it is happening), we must nonetheless form a view upon which to legislate. I'm asking you, in the absence any evidence whatsoever, why you think that view should be that there is no causation, rather than that there is causation. If neither are proven, all we have is correlation, why would presume the correlation is coincidence rather than causal?
If it is causal, and we do nothing, people will die. If it is coincidence, yet we legislate, people will be unable to say some stuff in public that most of us think is pretty hateful anyway.
I can't understand how you could rationally chose the former over the latter.
For a couple reasons. Censorship tends to push hatred into the underground where it festers and grows without any dissent or opposition.
With censorship, people no longer get to see hateful ideas collide with good ideas, or false ideas with true ideas. This, to JS Mill, was “robbing the human race”.
Hatred needs to be exposed, combatted and laid thread-bare with speech, or else people will continue to believe it.
So no demand for proof of direct physical causation when it comes the the negative effects of censorship? We just legislate on whatever effects you 'reckon' it might have?
It would be better if you didn’t legislate. Can you think of a single person, past or present, that has the moral capacity to tell you what you can and cannot say?
By 'legislate' I mean to refer to the process of deciding law, not the process of making law. A decision must be made, there is no natural default position because laws are currently in place. To allow hate speech now would require legislation to overturn existing law. If we just 'didn't legislate' from here, hate speech would remain illegal.
Quoting NOS4A2
No, but it's not about moral capacity. You could ask the same question about telling me what I can and cannot do and my answer would still be no. Does that mean we should have no laws at all?
Hate speech is legal where I’m from. So by not legislating it would remain legal.
Well, actions are different than speech. Yes, there should be laws against certain actions, but no, there should be no laws regarding speech.
That is of no relevance, given that there are actual cases contrary to your own personal experience.
It is certainly relevant if the speech causes the opposite reaction as people claim.
But it doesn't in the cases that matter. Laws aren't based on exceptions like that. That would be extremely foolish. Should drink driving become legal again because you've driven home over the limit a number of times without accident?
How does that relate to the argument you presented in support of this conclusion...
"Can you think of a single person, past or present, that has the moral capacity to tell you what you can and cannot say?"
If it doesn't relate at all, then I feel like I'm lacking any argument to support your position. Why do you think there should be laws against action but not speech?
I’m not talking about laws.
Because there is a fundamental difference between words and deeds.
Then you're off topic.
I am fully on topic.
No, you're clearly not. Read the discussion title. The question of whether hate speech should be allowed is obviously a discussion relating to law.
Quibbling. It’s also a discussion relating to hate speech.
Lol. It's not quibbling, that's the main focus of the entire discussion, and pointing out that it's a discussion about hate speech misses the point.
The topic is about whether hate speech should be allowed and I’m arguing that it should be. Your quibbling is a red herring.
Which is a matter of law, so stop going around in circles, get back on track, and respond to my point.
This point?
I’d rather not. It has nothing to do with the topic.
lol again--now at the fact that you're inserting "the possibility of causation" in there.
Of course it does, analogically. Are you daft or trolling?
Not even analogically. Hate speech is legal in some jurisdictions.
That's beside the point. I made a point showing the error in the reasoning behind your conclusion. You can either respond properly or continue to waste time.
I’m sorry, maybe I misinterpreted your argument. Could you reformulate it without false analogies and quibbling?
I'm not 'inserting' it. This isn't an essay competition. I'm allowed to correct and clarify errors. It is part of the substance of my argument. Whether the term was present initially is irrelevant to the position as it stands right now.
If the best response you've got is to compare my posts for inconsequential inconsistencies in terminology then I think that speaks volumes about your ability to actually counter the argument as presented.
Yeah, you are. You realized you made a gaffe, and you're doing typical Internet conversation moves of trying to spin it into a save.
Why is correcting an error a 'spin'? Why would you conduct a debate in such a bizzare fashion?
I have zero interest in "debating."
That is becoming clear. When this website is renamed "Stuff Terrapin Reckons" then I will leave you to it. Until then I intend to continue presenting the flaws in your arguments as best I can. I take it from your inability to actually counter it that we're done here.
Sure, and I'll keep commenting as I do. Glad we have that sorted out. Maybe we can end the metadiscussion now.
Sure... So your counter-argument to my position as it currently stands is...?
It's not a false analogy, and the quibbling is coming from you. You haven't bothered to explain yourself one iota. I gave you a comparable example showing the fault in the kind of reasoning you're relying on, and you have yet to explain what your problem is with that; you've just made false accusations and hand waves.
Why should I reformulate something that doesn't need to be reformulated? It isn't difficult to understand, unless you're a simpleton or something.
To laugh at the fact that you weren't familiar with "correlation does not imply causation" and then to laugh again at your eventual attempt to claim that you were arguing that it "implies the possibility of causation" as if that were somehow material to what you want to claim in the first place, or as if we were somehow having a conversation about what is and isn't possible.
What was the fault in my reasoning?
It was a fallacy of relevance, and more specifically a hasty generalisation if you were suggesting that the fact that hate speech such as Hitler’s speeches do not incite you to hatred or violence, but rather incite you to the opposite, meaning to the hatred of Hitler, is sufficient grounds for concluding that hate speech should therefore be allowed.
I should not have had to spell that out. You should work on your critical thinking skills.
So none then.
lol
"sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence. Since it may be difficult or ethically impossible to run controlled double-blind studies, correlational evidence from several different angles may be useful for prediction despite failing to provide evidence for causation."
- from further down in the Wikipedia article whose existence caused you such amusement earlier.
But no doubt the authority of Wikipedia to determine what is the case does not apply to you.
How can I find out why this was the case?
I never said my contrary reaction meant hate speech should be allowed. A straw man. I was making the point that the theory that hate speech incites hatred against the victims of hate speech can be falsified.
Do continue making up what you think I'm arguing.
I never said you said so, so there's no straw man. There was an "if" in my last reply that you seem to have missed. That was one possible interpretation, and it fits, given the context. But even if it wasn't a hasty generalisation, then it was nevertheless a fallacy of relevance, more broadly.
Quoting NOS4A2
It can't, and it most certainly can't by merely appealing to the experience of you or I, as you did in your original comment, as that would obviously be too small a sample group, and would fail to account for more relevant cases where people have actually been convicted of hate crimes.
Um... What alternative do you think I have apart from what I think you're arguing? Telepathy?
Reading what I had already written in the thread?
That’s false. It was a question, not an argument.
There is no point in equivocating between hate crimes and hate speech. One is not the topic, the other is.
But “incitement”, the idea that words can induce one to hatred, is magical thinking, which is a point i’ve Been making since the beginning.
If you want to see my arguments as to why hate speech should be allowed, we can talk about the rest of the arguments you suspiciously refused to quote.
I could say the same, where does that get us? I've read what you've already written, reached the conclusions I have about the substance of your argument and presented what I think are flaws. You can just continue to dodge actually responding to that, as you've been doing for the exchange thus far, or you can actually respond, but I don't see the merit of continuing to simply be insulting.
Tsk... the questions were rhetorical, but I guess it's a lost art.
Ok, let's unpack this: If there was a causal connection between hate speech on its own and hatred/violence, rather than speech simply being a tool to inflict hate, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion given the widespread availability of it thanks to the internet and we'd be promoting hate-based narratives. If this isn't enough, keep reading for more concrete examples.
It wasn't hate speech per se, it was hate speech delivered by a charismatic authority figure, in the right socioeconomic climate and allowing it to go unchallenged. Basically without the alignment of various socioeconomic factors, hate speech would be little more than words. The factors that enabled Nazism have been the topic of discussion of historians for decades for this reason. To say it was just speech is too simplistic, too local.
For specific evidence, take a look at Hitler's works and footage. Mein Kampf is basically a hate manifesto that has been circulated worldwide (though not Bavaria until recently) for a rather long time. You can find .pdfs of it with a simple search, it has been a widely available/read book, often by prominent, influential intellectuals, yet not everyone who reads it becomes an antisemitism mouthpiece.
Going further: Many of Hitler's speeches are available in video/audio format and the internet has caused them to become widespread. In Youtube alone many of them have millions of views, yet the comments (in the videos that allow them) suggest not everyone bought what he had to sell.
No, it wouldn't. Hate speech is widely contested in general, and there are many barriers to open violence as it is. Even if there is a risk, it is greatly preferable to the alternative:
To censor hate speech at a systemic level not only institutionalizes the idea that people cannot be relied on to think for themselves and scrutinize said speech , but it creates a slippery slope based on the fact there's no objective definition for hate speech. Censorship at a government level would act as a gateway for authoritarianism/ fascism by clearing the largest barrier to increasingly oppressive governance (think of the frog in boiling water analogy) . This would in my opinion endanger many more lives, hinder the quality of life of people as a whole and facilitate intellectual regression.
To make topics taboo creates sheltered perspectives on them, and leaves people unprepared against indoctrination in the event of being subjected to it. It also represents a form of legitimization: i.e. the idea that the topic is taboo because it cannot be disputed otherwise. Not to mention controversy begets curiosity.
On the other hand, allowing hate speech, then consistently challenging it, undermining it and ridiculing it in a public manner presents a great opportunity for society's education and entertainment. Think of it as a peer-assisted exploration, or think of a parent guiding a child as he encounters controversial topics in movies. It's not the information, it's the lack of counterpoints that validates it.
I understand your outrage, but it doesn't exactly do much to show me the error of my ways, or make me inclined to take you seriously or in good faith.
I don't speak the way I do to minimize the monstrosity that was the Holocaust, nor to diminish the loss of life and atrocities committed, but because I am of the mind that your perspective could beget similar ones. Hate speech, I reiterate, is a superficial symptom, not the illness.
The following is not a question:
Quoting NOS4A2
It is a clear appeal to your own personal experience. And your question was either rhetorical or suggestive, appealing to the experience of others, though you'll probably deny that because you're trying your best to backtrack and wriggle your way out of my criticism.
Quoting NOS4A2
Just because you apparently lack the intelligence to pick up on how what I'm saying links to the topic, that doesn't mean that it is off topic. How about you ask what the connection is before jumping to that conclusion? The connection should be obvious, but then this is you we're talking about, and you seem like the kind of person who would deny that the sky is blue if it suited your position in a debate.
Quoting NOS4A2
A point with no valid support that I've seen from you, and which flies in the face of a wealth of evidence to the contrary.
Quoting NOS4A2
You're letting your imagination get the better of you. I haven't "refused" to quote anything.
One of the reasons Hitler subjected his opponents to extreme censorship and the denial of civil rights was that he himself was censored and denied those rights. He made this explicit in a debate with Otto Wells, and used it as justification for the Richstag decree and the Enabling Act of 1933.
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes your quibbling about an aside question has allowed you to steer clear of my arguments in favor of why I believe hate speech should be allowed.
I was using the common and legal language of incitement to make a point. No, I’m not literally incited to hatred by someone’s expression. More bad faith quibbling.
I can tell why you're a fan of Trump.
I wouldn’t mind debating the topic. I think free speech is very important and debating it helps me clarify my thoughts, Can we start over?
No.
Well said.
Who said anything about the causal connection being about hate speech on its own? If hate speech were one factor which together with other factors, lead to violence, why would that have any bearing on whether we should legislate against it? Driving at 80 miles per hour through a village is only one factor leading to an increase in RTA deaths, that doesn't mean we shouldn't prohibit it.
Quoting Necrofantasia
But surely censorship would be only one factor among many in this degradation of civil life, not the sole direct cause. So why dont your concerns here suffer from the same problem as the correlation between hate speech and violence?
Simply claiming that censorship will lead to the problems you cite, but allowing hate speech will not lead to the problems I'm concerned about, doesn't really get us anywhere. If we're just down to speculation about whose consequences will come to be, there's not much more to say.
I maintain that in such circumstances we should err on the side of caution. We have a correlation between hate speech and violence. We have no examples where banning hate speech has lead to the slippery slope you describe. Why would we act on your speculation and not historical correlation?
Indeed, and obviously it should not. I suspect the whole basis for those on the other side of this debate reaching the conclusion they do is similarly flawed. I think this error in reasoning was best conveyed by Baden in his satirical reply early on, where he takes it to even more extreme lengths to highlight the absurdity.
One place it should get you is a realization that I wasn't saying anything about possibilities and I wasn't dismissing correlations.
As I've requested many times, specify all of the causal factors/the causal chain.
The Athenian elite believed Socrates would “corrupt the youth”, as if a poison, and killed him for it.
It seems obvious that those who believe words carry some force of power must believe they themselves can exert that power, and as a corollary, that it can be used on them.
In my view, this is a dangerous overestimation, essentially a superstition. Speech cannot fly through the air and control another’s action. But the idea is no less crystallized in our language, as far back as Ancient Greece apparently.
It's unreasonable to ask him to list them all, but it shouldn't be difficult to figure out what that list would include. It would include things like being of the right mindset, such as being vulnerable and easily influenced, perhaps having a propensity for violence, or having formed a prejudice against the target of the hate speech. One's environment, interests, reading materials, upbringing, what one watches, religion, and politics, can all affect one's beliefs and actions, and it is just not a credible position to take to deny that this is the case.
Of course they can, silly. It's called manipulation, and it's a skill, although it comes more naturally to some than others. It is a fundamental part of my job role as a salesperson. I am required, as part of my job, to use language to my advantage, in order to increase profit. A good salesperson will know exactly what to say and how to say it, and will be conscious of body language, tone of voice, facial expression, how to direct the conversation, add on sales, how to overcome objections, and so on.
But you’re not much of a manipulator if they know your skills and can see your con from a mile away. Your magical powers are negated.
It is really silly to call what I'm talking about "magical powers", and yes, of course one can learn how to spot what's going on and to resist it, if it doesn't come naturally. That doesn't refute my point in any way. People are different, and some are more easily manipulated than others. And that's why your earlier point was ill considered. The laws on hate speech are not there because of people like you or I. They are there to protect people like you or I from those who are the kind of people who are the prime target of incitements to hate crime.
They are there to protect citizens against the Jihadi Jacks of the world. Jihadi Jack is the name that was given to Jack Letts, and his case is a good example (though I'm sure there are plenty of others) of why hate speech should be banned. He has been interviewed on camera, spoken of his experience, and expressed deep regrets for his actions.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Censorship of ideas by itself has repercussions on a cultural level that mere traffic regulations don't have. You may eradicate an illness by preventing exposure to it, but I'd argue vaccination via education and critical thinking is a much better solution. Ideology operates the same way. Learn from history by educating people and providing them them the critical thinking tools to defend themselves, don't put them in bubbles.
I think I've already explained this: If you enable systemic censorship of one ideology on a preventive basis, you can always make the case to include others on similar grounds, gradually expanding the criteria of what gets censored depending of the agendas authorities want you to follow.
Deplatforming on a private level coupled with condemnation, rejection and ridicule by the general population serves the same functional purposes of censorship without giving authorities an umbrella term they can expand to legally persecute people for disagreeing with them or drawing caricatures of them and some such.
Not to mention, it innoculates people against similar lines of thinking, instead of just sheltering them.
A much more constructive alternative to censorship on a systemic level could be policies along the lines of the Fairness Doctrine, that made it a requirement to broadcast not just issues of public importance, but contrasting views.
If you only prepare yourself for problems you've already encountered, don't you leave yourself open for new takes on old concepts? There is no historical precedent for what the Internet has facilitated for example.
We have a correlation between censorship of detractors and authoritarianism in history and it has been established as a power consolidation device. It is also a core component of the definition of Fascism. It's not just my speculation.
If you want another specific historical precedent, I point to the documented effects of religious censorship on scientific development across history, construed as "Anti God". The logical progression to calling it hate speech wouldn't be difficult to make.
Essentially I trust my peers to do "censoring" on their terms, not the system.
Speaking of which, let's hope my post lasts longer than a minute this time.
Did you contact a mod? Your posts dont seem offensive or against the rules so its probably some limd of filter glitch or something.
Quoting NOS4A2
So the media induces hysteria in people, yet words are powerless, the idea that words can induce strong emotions like hatred is magical thinking, etc.? :brow:
Turns out it was a spam filter false positive. And I'm a goofus.
Confound dem sneaky newfangled thingamabobs.
It's not unreasonable if he wants me to believe that speech can be causal to actions. The main thing we'd have to show is that the people in question do not have free will in the situations in question. I don't know how we'd show that, though.
What's causal to actions then?
It is unreasonable for him to do as you ask as it is both impractical and unnecessary. If it is necessary for you to be convinced, then you yourself are being unreasonable. You're committing the continuum fallacy by rejecting the claim on the basis that it is not as precise as you would like it to be.
Quoting Terrapin Station
That's not necessary either. Where did you get that idea from? You've clearly gone wrong somewhere in your reasoning to think that.
Usually deciding to perform them.
What's causal to that decision?
Decisions don't have causal antecedents. That's the whole gist of free will. I don't buy determinism.
Other than decisions (you said 'usually' above) what causes actions?
Autonomic functions can, for example.
You said, 'for example'. What else?
Muscle memory is another example if you don't consider that coextensive with autonomic functions.
Is that it?
Is there a reason we'd be trying to give an exhaustive list?
Yes. But just to clarify first. Your responses to me just now were in no way caused by my posts. My posts played no part in the causal chain of our communications. Because that cannot happen in your view. Correct?
They were not the cause of my responses, correct. I had to decide to answer, decide what to type, etc.
But you accept that but for my posts you would not have written yours?
Sure, but that's not what a cause is. I still had to decide to write mine. I could have decided otherwise.
So my posts were a necessary but not sufficient condition for yours, right?
I think saying they were ontologically necessary, even, isn't really justified, but it would be an unusual situation, at least, for me to have written my posts as I did without them actually being a response to yours.
At any rate, it's definitely not sufficient, right.
Welcome to the world of necessary and sufficient causation.
Well, or the world of neither as I noted. :razz:
What is necessary and sufficient causation?
One can't forward an argument much worse than "that's utter nonsense and you know it"
Quoting Baden
So the existence of my posts was not necessary for you to quote them?
We can't imagine what someone else might say?
After all, a lot of the content on boards like this might as well be coming from a telemarketing or apologetics "objection sheet"
You had to press the quote button and the reply button on my posts for your posts to be written as they were.
I suppose this sort of thing isn't possible?
That's not what you did though.
Which is irrelevant to whether it was ontologically necessary.
That's absurd.
Can you explain how necessary and sufficient causation makes your case here? I googled it so have a basic understanding but I dont see how you are using it here in such a way that it is laughable to disagree. My understanding thus far is that it is s contentious issue in philosophy, rather than something only fools would disagree with you on.
So you don't buy free will.
I certainly don't buy your interpretation of it.
Would you subscribe to a compatibilist version of it? I don't believe that compatibilism is coherent.
Maybe. My position on this issue isn't developed enough for me to say whether it is determinism or compatiblism or perhaps something else, but clearly it isn't whatever position you're advocating - that much I know for sure. Your position isn't credible and seems extreme. Though that shouldn't come as a surprise.
Firstly, why would I need to specify all of the causal links in the chain if you are, as you claim, not dismissing correlations. Either the correlation is sufficient to warrant some action (even if only to argue in favour of alternative correlations) or you are dismissing it. As it stands, there is a correlation between hate speech and violence which stands in need of either rejection on the basis of evidence that the correlation is merely coincidence, or action on the factor (hate speech) to prevent the undesirable correlated consequence (violence). I don't see how you can advocate neither and still claim you're not dismissing correlation. If you are not dismissing it, then what account are you taking of it?
Notwithstanding the above, I can quite simply give a reasonable theory as to the causal chain. Person A speaks some hate speech, person B hears it. The sounds are translated in part of the brain into meaning, usually something similar to the meanings held collectively by his community of language users. Those meanings form concepts which place the brain into mental states which make certain thought processes more or less likely. Other factors combine with this mental state to cause a person to act under the belief that such action will be in their interest. I could give a far more technical account if need be, but the above should be sufficient. It's not that complicated. If you want absolute proof that any of this is the case, then I can't provide it. Why would you demand a standard of absolute proof on this law when such a standard does not inform any other law, nor even our own actions?
Now, presuming you're in favour of any laws at all, you specify all the causal factors which justify the legal claim that driving above a certain speed causes harm, or that owning a gun causes harm, or that placing a bomb in a school causes harm, that reneging on a contractual promise causes harm...
Quoting Necrofantasia
Again, you're merely speculating on the consequences which such censorship as we're discussing here might have. That's fine, but for the fact that you're simultaneously dismissing any similar speculation on the consequences of hate speech as unproven.
Quoting Necrofantasia
No-one is talking about censorship on this scale. You cannot simply rely on 'slippery-slope' arguments absent of any justification for invoking such a thing. You might as well argue that we should have no laws restricting people's actions because how easy it would be for them to lead to draconian laws telling us what we can and cannot do. all laws could lead to more authoritarian versions of the same law. Why are laws prohibiting speech acts any different in this respect from laws prohibiting action?
Again, as I've asked before - why is the burden of proof on me to demonstrate that people do not have free will in this regard? It is you who are making the more outlandish claim, it is completely normal precedent for the burden of proof to fall on the person making the more outlandish claim. If I wish to claim that God is real, it is I who must prove it, rather than claim others have to prove he isn't . That is because we currently do not have any mechanism nor space for God so if I were to speculate he existed, I'd have to demonstrate why.
Why are you turning this precedent round here? Asking people to supply you with the exact causal chain, dismissing correlations which imply such a link, yet insisting that people make their decision independently without being directly and necessarily influenced by others without providing a shred of evidence in favour of this position, nor even a mechanism by which such a thing could happen.
If you want to prevent, or argue against, hate speech being banned on the grounds that the link between it and violence is not causal (as basically 99% of all psychologists and neuroscientist believe it is), then it is insufficient for you to simply declare you're right and then ask all your detractors to prove you're not. That's the tactic of religious zealots and it's a bit pathetic.
Demonstrate the mechanism by which independent decisions are made. Demonstrate what happens neurologically to separate the concepts formed by hearing hate-speech from the actions decided upon by the person. Explain exactly how the arm moves (in a violent act) under the direction of the brain, but start with how the first neuron is fired without having been stimulated by a previous firing. Explain how the, literally hundreds, of correlation between the speech of others and one's actions are just coincidence.
In the context of moral responsibility, necessary conditions can be part of a causal chain. So, if I, through a speech act (or otherwise), with the intent of causing another agent to partake of, say, a harmful action, bring about the necessary conditions for that action, and the action is, in fact, taken based on those necessary conditions, I bear some responsibility (along with the other agent) for the harm that results (I was involved in causing the harm). But we can't get to that part of the argument as Terrapin seems to be taking the position that if you 'buy free will', it follows that a decision about X doesn't necessitate X. For example, my posts were not a necessary factor in his decision about how to respond to my posts. Make of that what you will.
A classic slippery slope argument.
You want to argue causation. Correlations do not imply causation. That's not dismissing correlations as such. They simply do not imply causation.
That pretty much nails it.
Despite...
"Causality (also referred to as causation,[1] or cause and effect) is efficacy, by which one process or state, a cause, contributes to the production of another process or state, an effect,[2] where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. In general, a process has many causes,[3] which are also said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past."
From Terrapin's favourite source of authority Wikipedia, on Causality.
I keep thinking of public health issues. Do you see smoking as causal in lung cancer, even though it is often not sufficient?
lol--I simply pointed you to an article about something you weren't familiar with.
We've been through this already. I maintain that correlation does imply causation. I'm happy to adapt my language to whatever deductive strength you prefer to attach to the word 'imply', it doesn't alter the case.
We investigate factors which correlate for possible causal relationships. We do not routinely investigate factors which do not correlate. There is something about those factors which correlate which makes them routinely better candidates for potential causal relationships. I call that something "implying", if you think that's too strong a word, that's fine, but it doesn't make the relationship itself go away.
As have I.
I think that for most medical claims, we don't know causes very well. Genetics seem to have a lot more to do with it than we usually stress culturally. At any rate, it's well-known that we continually come out with studies a la "coffee is good for you," "No, coffee is bad for you," "Chocolate is bad for you," "No, chocolate is good for you," etc., and not just because of different details.
What did you think I wasn't familiar with and what was your evidence?
You seem to be unfamiliar with the meaning of the word 'cause' my evidence being that you cannot accept something as a cause if it is merely contributory, whereas the concept of a cause as being a contributory factor is well known and well accepted.
Though I haven't heard much positive with cigarrettes, for example. Would you think that telling people that regular cigarette smoking increases your chances of lung cancer and emphysema would be ok? (I know you are a free speech purist, so you must, certainly allow for such utterances even by institutions, but would you consider it wrong and philosophically ungrounded)
And I know you prefer a very focused discussion, but let me throw out alcohol. Alcohol cannot make a driver make poor decisions on the road, and some can handle percentages in the blood much higher than others. Would you based on these facts think that restricting driving while intoxicated is wrong?
Or making the introduction of toxins in food potentially illegal, even though responses vary between humans and some will even be immune to direct poisons?
I am obviously trying to skirt about the word 'cause' and head for situations where statistics come into play. Obviously there are many situations where statistics are up in the air (chocolate) but others with much stronger indications of underlying contribution to results.
Okay, but I couldn't disagree with you more.
It's not that the correlation can't be the cause of something. But the fact of a correlation doesn't tell you anything about causes. The correlated facts might have nothing at all to do with the facts we want to explain.
But it does tell you something about causes. It tells you that the factor which correlates is more likely to be a cause than one which doesn't. So take a factor (the consequence). Those factors with which it correlates are more likely to be cause than those factors with which it does not correlate. That is telling you something about causes. It is telling you which factors are more likely than which others to be causes. You can't claim that that isn't some information about causes.
Which is not the case as I've explained a couple times already. All I require is that we actually show that it's a cause, which requires showing the other causes or a causal chain, because a correlation isn't sufficient (and it certainly isn't necessary if it's not actually a cause and it's merely correlated).
Based on what? How are you figuring likelihood. I don't at all buy Bayesian probability by the way.
Sure, telling people that studies show a correlation is fine.
Quoting Coben
Not just based on that, but I'm not in favor of drunk driving laws. In general, I'm not in favor of "laws against potentials." I have no problem with having harsher negligence laws, so that when and if something does happen due to negligence, there are significant penalties for it.
Quoting Coben
I'd just require accurate labeling.
Remember that I'm basically a minarchist libertarian. I simply don't agree with libertarianism economically (re the standard view of how libertarians think the economy should be structured/should function). There's no need for people to be homeless, without healthcare, without a job if they want one, etc. We can structure the economy differently, while still being libertarian in spirit, so that no one has to worry about that sort of stuff (having a place to live, being able to get healthcare, etc.)
It would rather be like claiming that smoking causes lung cancer where one isn't buying causal determinism in general--say where one believes that ALL phenomena are akin to probabilistic phenomena.
But we have shown that it is a cause. I've detailed the probable causal chain in one of my posts. The fact that we haven't shown it to your satisfaction is the issue here, and the issue on which I made my first post in this discussion.
It is very likely (agreed upon by a very wide range of psychologists and neuroscientist) that hate speech, and factors like it, are contributory to acts of violence. The causal chain is neurological. We definitely do not have incontrovertible evidence that this is the case, as with most brain science, the evidence is patchy ans suggestive at best, but it is evidence nonetheless.
My question here is why you are requiring such a high standard of evidence for this particular legislation when other, uncontroversial legislation, takes place on far less evidence. Mainly why the burden of proof is resting on those proposing a causal link using pre-existing mechanisms, and not on those proposing some magical non-physical cause for actions.
But if something repeatedly leads to statistical results I think there's a conundrum. I can want to defend the individual discriminated against by a law that limits him or her, but also want to protect other people from the statistical results of what happens when many engage in the activity. It's just statistics, it seems to me is a good defense, of the user, but a poor shrug in relation to victims.
And in the end on hate speech I am not sure where i come down -though there are many other issues involved as to why, not just the one above.
I can see that if it's something that doesn't involve choice/that people have no control over, but when it involves choices, I'd just stick to penalizing the people who make choices that wind up hurting someone else, or otherwise let people live with the consequences of their own choices when they hurt themselves.
Nazi leaders embraced, encouraged and recommended hate, using the communications medium of (hate) speech, and violent acts of hate were subsequently enacted. There is a causal connection here. It is not formally causal, nor is the connection always direct, but it is there. This can be verified by empirical examination, using sociological and statistical tools. For we all know that hate speech cannot and does not infallibly lead to violence. It relies on certain aspects of humanity, i.e. the way that we can be provoked beyond endurance. It is easy to argue that we should not act in this way, but that's the "ought", where the "is" is that we do act in this way quite often. Often enough that we need to consider it, which is what we're doing here.
I have been screaming this along the whole thread. People are really paranoid on losing their free speech by banning hate speech.
As an aside: I often get taken as trying to trap people. I won't claim I don't do that, but in general, I am probing things to get a sense of what a position entails and actually is.
If we claim that words don't influence action, we can allow a teacher to have indecent conversation with underage students and if they end up having sex, we shouldn't blame the teacher right ? Consent is recognized as a speech act so it also falls under free speech.
Good questions. Here is one thought-train, offered as another example: unconstrained freedom of speech gives us the freedom to insult and provoke. The freedom to own guns allows this to progress easily to violence and murder. Empirical observation confirms that this is a path humans are likely to follow, unless they are discouraged or prevented. Yes? Too many unconstrained freedoms lead to unacceptable results (unjustified violence) in some cases; far too may cases to ignore, I think.
Would you allow a speech act which states
" Let's ban free speech " and if it gets implemented, you won't have free speech anymore.
What is wrong with violence and murder, despite the fact that we don't like to be involved in it. We have created such social constructs to be safe but does that make if right or wrong ? :naughty: :naughty:
The fact that we (i.e. our society) did it makes it "right". There is no external ('objective') Law that covers such decisions. "Right" is what we say it is, so our prohibition of hate speech, and of murder, is right because we say it is. [ I intend this not as an assertion, but as a pragmatic acceptance of what is. ]
I find anyone who thinks any of this simple and clear to have something I don't have.
So nazi Germany beliefs and ideas were okay because all of them thought so. People in the past, agreed on a global level that slavery was okay. We don't always progress towards improving our morality, but we can try to correlate better morals with better living conditions in a society.
:wink:
Just as a complete aside... Don't you live in a democracy? Why would you be concerned about the direction the democratically elected government is taking, but relived by the arming of the very demos that elected them in the first place. Seemed incongruous enough to pique my curiosity.
Personally, based solely on the evidence that they freely elected President Trump, the thought that such a population might also be armed terrifies me.
Yes. And while I'm not saying it's like this everywhere, in my experience this seems to be how police have treated speed limits for quite some time. People only seem to get pulled over if they're driving recklessly, not because they're speeding.
Quoting Coben
I'm in favor of basing that stuff on ability (to consent in a standard way), not age.
Yes, of course.
"Getting implemented" isn't speech.
That's not my experience. You do get to go up to five over on the highway, but above that, you can be driving just peachy and get pulled over. And I've been pulled over for things that don't affect safety like an outdated registration sticker. Heck, I've been pulled over for not looking right, which may have some correlation with driving poorly, but I wasn't exhibiting the latter.Quoting Terrapin Station
So there would have to be some kind of psychological evaluation in cases where children were purported to have given consent to adults?
Let's take this thought experiment for clearing the problem on gun control. If the USA government suddenly turns into a fascist regime or a dictatorship, the people won't win the battle against an armed force, this isn't the old civil war. The technology that is in dispose of army is vastly superior to what the common public has and l doubt that anyone country in the world would try to liberate America if such events happen to take place.
Gun control is a positive move, military type rifles that are only required in warfare shouldn't be legal. There should be a greater restriction on what types of arms people can have to defend themselves and feel secure.
Yes, but still.. Given even a limited choice, they made a really bad one. But this is off topic, I shouldn't have started it.
But then it seems that even arguing in favor of parsimony would normally entail saying it's better that way, and that this would be justified using effects. The negative effects of not being parsimonius.
Or?
I didn't mean people don't get pulled over for any other reason. I meant in my experience people tend to get pulled over for speeding, just for driving recklessly. The places where I drive, it's not unusual for almost everyone to be going 15-20 mph over the speed limit (when possible--sometimes it's not possible due to congestion).
This is just an aside, but an interesting thing about New York City (and the immediately surrounding areas) is that a lot of roads--not highways, but streets in the city, are really rough/uneven, and the city is in no hurry to fix most of them, I think because it provides a "natural deterrent" to racing down city streets--it will tear the shit out of your car. Kind of sucks for trying to bike on those streets, though.
Quoting Coben
If there were a claim of a consent violation, part of what we'd investigate is whether the person was even capable of consenting. (And this goes for adults, too.)
This is nonsense. We've just agreed (I thought) that for a thing to be causal it only need to be one cause among others. What (in a world of free will, which I don't subscribe to at all by the way) would prevent the action of the speech on the brain (whatever effect speech has) from being one of the causes, a free will decision being the other?
Are you suggesting that free will must be considered entirely unaffected by other factors in order to be 'free'?
We of the present day nearly always consider that we do everything better, and in a more sophisticated and enlightened way, than our historical predecessors. We see news reports of bad things in our societies, and we dismiss them because they happened 20 years ago, which is more or less prehistory, and besides, we don't do this any more. :chin: The truth is that we get things wrong, we have always got things wrong, and we will continue to get things wrong, as far as we can see. Well probably also get some things right.... :chin:
But you are creating little straw men out of my words. :sad: Nazi "beliefs and ideas" were not "okay". They were adopted and pursued by mid-twentieth-century Germans. We can assume, I suppose, that they did what they thought was right, but that's irrelevant. We can only observe that they did what they did. An observation does not communicate agreement or disagreement, so my own observations do not consider what happened in Germany to be "okay" or not "okay", but only that these things happened, and they weren't accidental. The German people decided what to do, and then did it, as all societies do. But acceptance does not constitute agreement.
Why is free speech an important human right, and above the right to life ? In my opinion, both views are okay as long as the society works well and if the society tends towards anarchy and disorder, we will have to change certain laws or perish.
Yes, I recently saw a short doc on a solution to a dangerous part of town for pedestrians was to eliminate all signs and lights. Drivers got nervous and slowed down, and they have stayed slowed down. Eveyrone has to negotiate all their interactions, eye contact, checking around, no one entitled by clear rules. The number of deaths and accidents radically decreased. Me, I'd keep cars out of Manhattan and give the handicapped tiny little tricycle car-lings. That might strike a libertarian as taking away freedom, but I don't think people would actually be less free and I'd be freer.Quoting Terrapin StationIt's hard for me to imagine this not leading to a lot more children who much later realize they were traumatized having sex 'willingly'.
Yeah, that's all part of being a minarchist libertarian--we're characterized by wanting to minimize laws.
I've often said that politicians should be given bonuses for smartly eliminating laws, not creating more of them. The way things are set up now, there's an incentive for creating more and more laws--otherwise constituencies think that the people they elected are "not doing anything."
And not that this is characteristic of minarchist libertarianism, but I'm also very against our current prison culture. I think it's necessary to separate violent people, for example, from the main population, especially when there's good reason to believe that they'd be violent again, but I think that the way we do that via prisons, the way that prisons are typically managed, etc., is not justifiable in my view. The ideal would be to separate them geographically--like on an island or something, and let them manage themselves for the most part (not prohibiting assistance, trade, etc.), while simply prohibiting travel from the geographic area while they serve out their sentence.
From experience elsewhere, I'm not about to focus on the can of worms that's talking about sex in this regard. We can focus on a bunch of other stuff, like driving, drinking, signing contracts, etc.
I don't typically think about anything in "rights" terms, aside from what we've legally stipulated as rights. At any rate, speech has nothing to do with "the right to life." Speech can't kill anyone (well, aside from something like a device that's triggered by sound--"Alexa, fire the gun" or whatever).
Sure. And to know this, we need to be able to show that it's a cause.
You're on a philosophy board. You're familiar with epistemology, right?
But it would be very hard to argue, for you I mean, that there is a problem with more laws. That these cause problems. It would be such a hard scientific experiment to set up,where we limit the variable and compare the outcome of two very similar societies, one with more laws and one with less, the latter having a parsimony attitude the former thinking laws are proactive.
I think it would be hard to even show correlation, let alone cause.
I take back my argument if it undermined your stance but l do see a problem with your idea that the sole deciding power of morality lies in the general consensus of society. If you disagree with germans beliefs and morals in nazi Germany, you will have to judge him by our present standards, not their standards but l think it is an unfair move on our part. We cannot judge a standard of morals by itself and to me it appears that we don't have tools to decide which system is better, other than feelings and common culture which are not in any sense reliable.
But how can we get something wrong in a system if it is act according to it and there is no objective criterion for deciding which system is better ? :smile:
I'm not sure what you're thinking here. People will have preferences for approaches to government. You can prefer fewer laws.
Well, "better" is a statement of preference on my view.
I think it's better. Someone else might not.
Yes, and as I think I have even seen you write before, knowledge is not a matter of proof.
We are able to show that it is a cause to the satisfaction of almost every expert in the field.
We cannot prove beyond all doubt that it is a cause, we do not have a full understanding of how the causal links work, nor do we fully understand the effect of other factors. But all knowledge is like this. If we constrain ourselves to taking action only on those matters about which we are absolutely certain, we would never act.
I'm not about to hinge it on the mere fact that people are socially recognized as "experts in the field" (what field would we be talking about here, anyway?)
A field can have something wrong, so that all--or at least most--people recognized as experts are believing/forwarding wonky crap.
I'm not at all talking about proof. That we can't prove empiricals doesn't mean that we're off the hook re presenting evidence. No amount of evidence can be proof. So that's a red herring. But if we don't present any evidence, we have no good reason to believe something.
That's not just rhetorical, by the way. What field do you think is pertinent, and from where are we getting the notion that most experts in the field in question think that speech is causal to subsequent actions?
Is the field called Manchurian Candidatology?
I think that question carries its own answer. "There is no objective criterion for deciding which system is better". :smile:
But this is what I mean re burden of proof. You're suggesting that the 'so called' experts are not to be trusted, that it would be best not to make hate speech illegal, but you've not offered a shred of evidence to support your position. You've simply assumed it as the default and required that we offer evidence sufficient to convince you of a causal link.
I'm asking, and have been from the start, why you feel the burden of proof falls on those claiming a causal link when it comes to legislation, and not on those claiming that the observed correlation is not causal.
To trust something merely because they're experts is the argument from authority fallacy.
It depends on what we're talking about. You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis, and you'd never buy something ONLY because experts agree.
Evidence to support my position? What factual claim do you think I'm making?
I don't buy "burden of proof" nonsense. But I'm not about to believe something without evidence of it, without good reasons to believe it.
Again, what field are you even talking about here, by the way?
The causal link can be observed empirically, but it's vague. We need to apply sociology and statistics to clarify that hate speech often leads to violence. But if we do, the result is clear: hate speech leads to violence often enough to legislate against it.
Quoting Isaac
[Rant]
Any sentence containing the phrase "burden of proof" is BS, and should be ignored. It's a way of saying that someone else has to do the work, because you can't be bothered.
[/Rant]
Case closed.
You'd be making a correlation, but correlation doesn't imply causation.
Even at that, though, what would be evidence that "hate speech" is often correlated with violence? Just what are we sampling, and how are we ensuring that it's effectively random? Can you give a couple examples of what you're sampling for a claim like that?
No. I just smoke, and then a decision is made on whether or not I have cancer. Correlation doesn't imply causation.
( :wink: )
I'm not sure what I can do to answer this more fully than I already have. Psychology deals with observed causes and effects and fits them to hypotheses on the basis of consistency. Neuroscience deals with cause and effect with observed brain activity and fits them to hypotheses on the basis of co-incident behaviours.
Both are flawed, but no less so than just about every other science in one way or another.
As to the evidence that most experts agree on the matter, short of collecting every paper I can access, I can't see how I can prove it to you on a forum like this. Just open a standard textbook on the subject. I guarantee you it will assume a causal link between environmental variables (such as the speech of others) and behaviour.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I never suggested trusting them merely because they are experts. But to automatically doubt them without due cause is no less fallacious.
Quoting Terrapin Station
That actions are taken free from causal influence from the environment. This claim is not only central to your position, but requires you to invent some magical force which causes human action. I'd say that at least carries some requirement for evidence.
Okay, so you're saying that psychology and neuroscience are the relevant fields.
What are a couple examples you have in mind of psychologists and/or neuroscientists claiming that speech is causal to subsequent actions in other people?
Quoting Isaac
You're making the claim. Hopefully you're not just making it up, betting on not being wrong. So just give a couple examples.
I said nothing like that. Not the least reason for which is the odd conjunction of "causal" and "influence."
No, I can't be bothered. You know as as I well how such inquiries are carried out. I will not carry on clarifying my clarifications beyond the point where even my autistic judgement can see that you're taking the piss. That point has been reached and passed.
Okay . . but without some examples, I don't at all believe that there's any example of looking at this where it would turn out that most people exposed to an utterance reacted violently.
And that would rather amount to there being a negative correlation between the utterance and the action in question. Most people exposed to the utterance did not act violently.
[Straw-man alert]
"And that would rather amount to there being a negative correlation between the utterance and the action in question. Most people exposed to the utterance did not act violently. "
The point being that the argument that there's even a positive correlation would be false.
I'm not about to waste my time linking papers by authorities you fully intend to reject. I've been here before and spent half the day looking up links to suitable papers only to have them rejected out of hand, it's not worth the effort. If you have so little experience of psychology that you don't already know the consensus opinion on the matter, then I can't see the point of this line of argument.
If you really want something to go on, then I can just pick the names of psychology professors I know of. I can guarantee they will be of the opinion that environmental influences are causal. In fact I'm struggling to think of any psychologists who do not think that.
Okay. I can't say I'm at all surprised.
How about if I paypal you, say, $100 if you can find a psychologist or neuroscientist clearly saying that speech is causal to others' subsequent behavior?
They have to use the word "causal" (or say something like "It's a cause"), where it's at least suggested that the others, those being caused to act, didn't have a choice in how they acted.
It has to be someone whose credentials are verifiable, and we need to be able to confirm that they wrote this prior to today (to prevent you from simply having someone you know write it for this purpose).
No debate about it--just find anyone saying something like that and I'll paypal you the money.
You most certainly said something like that. What is odd about causal and influence being conjoined?
Why, do you think that most experts would not agree?
Influences are not the same thing as causes.
I can't recall ever seeing any psychologist claiming that speech is causal to others' subsequent actions, where the others did not have any choice in the matter. That would be positing something like the Manchurian Candidate, hence the joke about that earlier.
As for neuroscientists, I can't recall ever seeing anything even approaching what would be a discussion about this.
... And this is why I didn't bother wasting my time.
Who said anything about "didn't have a choice in how they acted", who ever mentioned hat the cause must be sufficient. In fact I seem to remember quite a long exchange about how causes do not have to be sufficient. So why would my evidence need to show that they were unable to act otherwise?
If they had a choice, then the speech wasn't the cause. Their decision was.
I made this clear from the very start.
Decisions are influenced causally by a wide range of factors, and that can include hearing a speech.
Better is always in someone's opinion. "Better for people in general" is ambiguous because of that. I think it's better with respect to people in general. People in general might not have that opinion (as a consensus or whatever).
Less laws is better because most laws, in my opinion, infringe upon behavior they shouldn't infringe on.
For the 100th time, influences are not causes.
No. If they had what appears to be a choice, then it only shows that the speech is one cause among others and if those others are not present no violent action will ensue. Its really not that complicated. A carburettor requires both fuel and air to cause the engine to turn. If it is missing the fuel it will not turn, but hat doesn't mean the air is not a cause at all, it's just not a sufficient one. You really need to read up about sufficient and necessary causes.
Why are you introducing "appear"? Either it's an ontological fact that they had a choice or it is not.
Right, but it's a political level discussion. In most cases when people argue for a political level option in policy, they will argue that Policy A is good becasue it causes X and Y and Policy B or not having policy A is bad because it causes Z and Ä. But for you, given your very strict sense of what can be called a cause, such things are very hard to demonstrate. IOW I was raising the issue of whether it is good or better to have few laws to see if you would justify this in terms of causes and effects. Even in a single person demonstrating that something causes a specific effect is hard because we are so complicated entities. To demonstrate net effects at a societal level is even more complicated. You responded that it was a preference. Which steps to the side of causes and effects. Now perhaps if pressed you would say you prefer it because having more laws causes X. I think that would be tough to demonstrate, most of the those potential Xs.
You repeatedly claiming that doesn't start to make it true. If the confluence of 100 factors is sufficient to cause an event, then each one of them can be termed a 'cause', each could equally be termed an 'influence'. This is normal language use, and pretty much all the other posters seem to understand it. Does that not at least give you pause to think that it might be your understanding of the meaning that is wrong?
If in your view influences are causes, and you want me to accept that, then you need to present an argument that there's no distinction.
Yes, but we might not know the truth of that fact, hence "appears".
That has wrong what meaning and understanding are.
What I'm talking about is the ontological situation where there's a choice.
We can't say, without making un-agreed upon commitments, that such a situation can exist, hence we must proceed in the absence of such certainty. We have to act despite it. That's what I'm questioning, how we do that. Why presume a genuine free choice can be made when there is zero evidence to support that view?
Don't make me chase you down. Is there are argument somewhere in there that says that more laws cause bad things and could you run through the causal chain if there is one?
That the effects of these causes would be that things are worse for us. Not just correlation and not just based on your preferences but I suppose either on ours in general or the states we would be in would be objectively worse.
Not according to my understanding of the terms 'meaning' and 'wrong'
So again, you don't buy free will? Just be upfront about that if so. There are a lot of people on this board who'd agree with that.
Sorry, I overlooked your second-to-last post and I'm just seeing the new one. I'm looking at them now.
No. It's purely a matter of a lot of laws being about stuff that I think government has no business intruding on. For example, "saggy pants laws," or laws about whether you can sublet a property you own, or whether you can operate it as an Airbnb.
My comments are about what's the case ontologically. Not understanding terms.
It's not about buying free will or not. It's about what course of action we take in the self-evident situation that we cannot tell for certain if we do have free will or not.
We must, as a community, still take action despite that uncertainty. Hence the burden of proof discussion. To act as if we have free will require some, as yet undiscovered force which initiates action other than environmental variables. Since we have no evidence of such a force, I'm arguing the default position should be to presume it is not there, or at least not to rely entirely on it.
I'm asking you what your reasoning is as to why we should assume free wiil, apart from just that you 'reckon it's right.
Sure it is. I don't believe it's uncertain whether free will obtains.
Apparently you do.
I don't buy strong determinism in general (in physical terms), and I'm not a realist on physical laws.
I'm not sure that putting it in those terms works . . . I think they'd both be misleading for how I think about it.
Yeah they are. Example: the writings of Marx influenced my thinking, which in part caused me to purchase a number of books on the topic.
When you can't distinguish between a choice and what just appears to be one, then you can't rightly call it a choice, unless you alter the definition.
You didn't choose to purchase the books?
(And seriously, by the way--you're a Marx fan?)
In common parlance, we could say that I chose to purchase the books. But whether or not that's true or false depends on interpretation and on what's the case with regards to the free will debate.
Or we could just say that it seemed as though I had some choice in the matter.
Sure, so I'm asking your opinion. You don't believe that you chose to buy the books? Or are you agnostic on this issue?
So the sum total of your argument as to why we should not legislate against hate speech despite the clear correlation with violence is that hate speech cannot be a cause of violent action because violent action is actually caused by some magical force which we can't detect but you just 'reckon' is there.
We don't even need that.
We should not legislate against hate speech because we can't show it to be causal to violent actions.
That's all you need.
But we can show it to be causal to violent actions, just not to your satisfaction. And the reason the evidence we have is not sufficient for you is because of your belief in this magic force, so we do need to invoke it to explain your position. Without it, there's no explanation as to why you don't find the evidence we do have convincing that hate speech is probably causal to violent action.
Hate speech correlates with violent action.
There are only three possible scenarios I can think of.
1. The link is phsycally causal. There is a direct physical chain of causality making hate speech a cause of violent action.
2. There is no causal link between hate speech and violent action. The consistent correlation we see is just an incredible coincide caused by something else.
3. The correlation is real, but the causal chain is broken at some point by a chasm because violent action is only caused by some magical non-physical factor.
So without invoking your woo, you'd have to argue that the correlation was entirely coincidence. Is that what you're suggesting?
@Terrapin Station, as far as I understand him, has the position that there are two ways an event can obtain: it's either ontologically determined or ontologically random. Free will is possible because of ontological randomness. So, if people have free will, the decisions they make are ontologically random, and therefore not caused - by anything.
Like I said, it depends what that means and what that logically entails. Until that's explored, I don't have a position on the matter, so yeah, agnostic.
Of course, I'm not going to change how I ordinarily speak, which is an ingrained habit anyway. So I'll still talk about choosing this and that.
You'll have to unpack that a bit, if you want me to comment on it. I have no idea what you might mean by "ontologically random", but at a very basic level I don't see how that changes the situation. Whatever "ontological randomness" is, it is not a given that it obtains, nor is the mechanism by which it obtains any less magical woo, so all you seem to have done is move back the woo. "woo A definitely exists because it is made by woo B"
"Ontologically", the way Terrapin tends to use it, means really, actually the case. So ontological randomness really is random, and does not just appear to be random because we don't know the causes.
As to the justification for the belief that such randomness exists: There is currently no explanation for why some behaviour on the microscopic scale appears random. So it's not unreasonable to conclude that the randomness observed is ontological randomness.
Edit: I want to make clear that I am just trying to clear up misunderstandings. I don't want to argue on behalf of Terrapin.
But it is unreasonable. At least slightly so. Its unreasonable to believe physicists when they say there appears to be randomness at a sub-atomic scale and then disbelieve them when they say, almost to a man, that this could in no way cause randomness at our scale.
Any and all actions following hate speech, whether violent, hateful, or otherwise, begins with the listener, not the speaker. This is true of any reaction to speech.
I'll ask you the same as I asked Terrapin then. By what mechanism does it start? A violent action requires some neurological activity. This activity is in the form of electrical and chemical signals. From where did the signals arise, if not previous signals? What mechanism caused them to initiate?
Any reaction is self-generated. Neurological activity begins and ends at the listener.
How?
How does neurological activity (which is electrical signals) begin with the listener. What causes the electrical signal?
Perhaps more relevant to our discussion. The hearing and interpretation of hate speech is also electrical signals. What barrier is in place to prevent those electrical signals from eventually causing action. Where is this barrier in the brain and how does it work?
All you did was mention a correlation, and that's not even plausible.
Or did you have something else you weren't sharing?
Simple biology.
I think you’re trying to say the outside stimulus, in this case hate speech, triggers the biology. I’d say that’s true. But the sequence of events that causes the listener to act in a certain way begins with the listener.
So first, there's no way based on your comments that you're not a strong determinist.
As I mentioned, I'm not even a realist on physical laws.
We don't have to get into all of that, though. What we're you even claiming as evidence of a positive rather than a negative correlation between hate speech and violence?
Yes. A consistent correlation without any alternative explanation and a plausible mechanism by which it could have causal influence. That is what most people find to be satisfactory evidence. Especially when what's at stake is potentially people's lives. The fact that you don't find it satisfactory only shows how you're allowing your irrational belief in these magic forces to override concern for your community's welfare.
What consistent correlation are we referring to?
Right. So what barrier then prevents that biology from causing action?
I’m not sure of the exact biological mechanism, but colloquially I would say it begins with the understanding. Like any outside stimulus, a word must first be understood, in this case recognized, attached with meaning, long before it is acted upon.
I'm not going round the houses on this, you tried this with the psychological evidence and I'm relieved that I didn't waste time on it. You ask for evidence, I search around for good links, you tell me they don't constitute evidence because of some caveat you were keeping in you pocket for the great "ah ha" moment. I'm not playing that game.
If all that held you back from agreeing that hate speech causes violent action is that you don't believe there is evidence of correlation, then look it up to your satisfaction. You can Google just as well as I can. If you've already done so, fine, I'm hardly likely to come up with the killer paper that convinces you otherwise.
If you want to argue philosophy I'm happy to continue. If you want me to muster evidence to prove things which we both know are uncontoversially held by many people who have already done such research, just so you can dismiss it, then I'm afraid I don't have the stomach for it.
I'm not here to act as your intro to social psychology.
If you don't want to tell me what correlation you're even referring to, then I really couldn't care less.
I'm not about to buy that there really is a correlation when you won't even bother showing a correlation that you're referring to. You can make all of the cliched excuses you like. I'm sure you'll write another 100 posts or whatever telling me how you're not going to waste your time.
That will make it really believable that there's a correlation.
As I said. I'm more than happy to write another 100 post from my own thoughts. I enjoy thinking of arguments and looking for flaws. I do not enjoy researching good quality links especially when I know full well the request is disingenuous. I'm not here to win, I'm here to enjoy myself. I'm here to discuss philosophy, not hand-hold a student who hasn't even done the most basic empirical research.
This is one of the most stupid of the cliched tactics. What in the world would be MY motivation to look up something that you're claiming that I think is bullshit?
No shit? lol
Yeah, this isn't from the stock objection sheet of someone who can't support a bullshit claim they made up. I could write the rest of your responses for you if you like. I know how the dance goes.
The problem for me is people are beginning to blur the line between word and deed, so much so that they are conflating speech with violence. That’s dangerous territory. So I think it is important for us to, at the very least, see if it is even possible.
I know I'm going to regret this, and I shouldn't let you bait me, but here is the standard work on the causes of hate crime from the Human Right Commission. It's pretty exhaustive if you're actually interested. It cites more than a dozen researched examples.
Here is a more up to date paper focussing on Germany.
Lets have a mature debate, and don't make me regret this please.
I'm retired, but I used to work as a consultant on ethics in risk assessment. Among other things. Is this relevant for some reason?
But people can only blur lines if they were clear beforehand.
Thats not a valid justification, it is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because the answer isnt known doesnt mean you get to just insert one, even if its possible or plausible.
This issue doesnt seem as complicated as its being made out to be. The speaker is responsible for what they say, the listener is responsible for what they do in response. Just stop and think about what it would be like if the speaker could be held responsible for the actions of others who hear him. It might not be a problem in a world of some kind of objective interpretation, but we dont live in a world like that. Who knows how someone could take something. You might think its obvious in some cases like Hitler, but that simply isnt going to be the case most of the time. Someone is going to have to be the arbiter and that's not a level of power that im willing to give anyone, and certainly not something I would want enforced by law. Why? Because even if the best, most fair and wise person for the job takes their place at the head of the Department of Ok Speech, having that department as part of the system means someone else can eventually take over who isn't so wise and benevolent and use it for something else, something horrific perhaps. Maybe something like a holocaust. Just. Like. Hitler.
Controlling speech is the first and most powerful move of all the most horrific nightmares of human society. Its not something we should play with just because we dont like hearing racist trash come out of someone's mouth.
You think hate speech is going to spread hate and violence? Think of the KKK in the states. No hate speech laws. There was a time when the KKK was wide spread and powerful, in the south openly gathering in large, powerful groups. Free to spout racist garbage and recruit. Now, they are powerless by comparison. There are way bigger problems nowadays than white nationalism, where as at one time that might have been the biggest one. What happened? Society said “no”, and things changed. The power is in the people, and its the people that decide which direction to go. Its their responsibility, not some asshole full of hate.
Anyway, I obviously made a mistake, it is complicated. Thats the longest post ive made in this forum. That was a dumb thing to say and I retract it. I was wrong.
Granted, people have always attempted to blur that line, even as far back as Ancient Greece.
Scanning through that, I don't actually see any comments on correlations between hate speech and hate crimes. It's obviously about hate crimes, and it mentions hate speech, but I don't see any sort of research into/statistics for actual correlations. Am I just overlooking the relevant section?
Section 2 "causes of hate crimes" discusses external causes. The subsection on family and educational factors list research by Judith Harris on the effect of peer opinions (verbalise).
As I said, I'm not going to hand-hold you through this. Read the paper and links if you're interested.
That actually has some correlation statistics, but I'm not seeing info on the total number of people exposed to the speech in question versus how many of those people committed some sort of hate crime. (Also, they don't seem to even confirm that the people who committed the hate crimes saw the speech in question, and there's no mention of whether the perpetrators might not have been the same people who posted the speech, even.)
I looked through that, but I didn't see anything about correlation studies.
This is important, by the way, because if a huge number of people saw the messages but very few of them committed any sort of hate crime, it suggests that the speech/action connection is very low, maybe negligible.
I don't believe I have dismissed them, I just am pointing out that giving authorities the tools to "protect" us by silencing others has a greater potential for long term harm and casualties than hate speech does..
You asked for evidence, I gave it to you, nothing came of it. You insist correlation is causation, especially concerning your argument, but it's merely speculation on mine, there's nothing I can do here.
Didn't I point out to the role religion has had in hindering science via censorship? Heresy has parallels with hate speech in this particular case. I could also point to authoritarian regimes in Venezuela and Cuba, which were assisted by censorship of detractors. If you're just going to cherry pick from the stuff I post, and request answers only to ignore them, maybe I'm wasting my time?
Why do you not see censorship of ideas as inherently draconian?
Do you not see censoring as burying the problem? Censoring hate speech may protect people, but without giving them the means to protect themselves, they are only protected within the power scope of authorities.
Again, it wasn't just hate speech, it was hate speech made relevant to the sociological factors at play back in that era. And I have to emphasize, it was hate speech that went uncontested i.e. They had control of the narrative. And as they gained power, they could let the compelling power of authority do the rest. Take the Milgram experiment as a reference.
Censoring can lead the ignorant to consider that maybe censorship occurs because hate ideology is irrefutable ergo the truth, which it isn't. Might as well just refute it as often as it takes.
So? That's obvious and beside the point. The fact that it's a reaction to the speech means that the speech had an affect on the listener. And that's a basis for the law being as it is with regards to hate speech.
That’s why I asked another poster if they themselves were “incited to hatred” by hate speech. The fact that hate speech is particularly reviled among the vast majority of civilized human beings should throw some doubt on the claim.
But the speech had the same effect on the listener as any other sound.
How absurd.
So, let's say that a young man who became engrossed with and joined a far-right anti-Islam group has just been convicted of a hate crime where he committed acts of violence against Muslims, and the police investigation found hate speech in video form on his computer, which was used as evidence against him.
Are you telling me that you'd argue that a video of a cat playing with a ball of string, which was also found on his computer, had the same effect on him? It wouldn't have mattered which video was used as evidence against him in court? They could have used the video of the cat instead?
I’m talking of real effects, as in cause and effect, not the specious “effects” you have in mind. Yes, light and sound have certain effects on the body. In that sense the effects are the same.
I'm talking about real effects, too. It'd be daft to suggest that only sensory effects, like light and sound, are real. Hate speech can change one's opinion, how they judge a group of people, what they believe, and that in turn can cause them to commit crimes which they otherwise might not have committed. That's cause and effect. That's shared culpability between the authors of hate speech and the perpetrator of hate crime.
Now it’s on you to explain how one combination of words can move someone differently than another combination of words. But that’s to argue for sorcery, which I believe is impossible.
No, it's not sorcery. You're being utterly ridiculous. The speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. and Hitler literally changed the world, and in significant ways, as did the writings of Karl Marx.
That wouldn't have happened if they had been replaced with Harry, Niall and Liam from One Direction.
What is the video supposed to be evidence of, exactly?
Which video?
But it's not inserting an answer. It's taking the experimental result at face value. Supposing there are unknown causal factors at work is inserting an answer.
Sorry, was referring to this: "the police investigation found hate speech in video form on his computer, which was used as evidence against him."
What would that be evidence of?
Quoting Terrapin Station
This is what I wanted to avoid. Of course you don't see anything about correlation studies. There's an entire history of behavioural psychology which is assumed in studies which refer to authorities. If you don't trust those authorities then the only alternative is to re-do all that research history yourself. My background (with regards psychology) is social psychology. I'm not a behavioural psychologist, I'm not a neuroscientist, and I'm not even that up to date with social psychology research. I can't conduct a short course on behavioural psychology.
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that you will find flaws in whatever research I present. There are flaws in it. If you want to maintain a position in areas where evidence is weak, you can obviously do so. I've no doubt a few minutes Googling will bring you a haul of research supporting your theory.
None of this is the point. The point is that these people are very obviously at least your epistemic peers. If it is possible for them to be wrong but still think they are right, then it follows that it must be equally possible for you to be wrong.
Given that possibility, what do we do as a community about jointly making laws. That is the debate here as I see it.
Hate crime, obviously, which is defined as
a crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds.
:confused: okay, but that's what I was asking for.
I'd never consider a video like that to count as evidence of motivation, but at any rate, I'd not classify anything as a "hate crime" in the first place.
You can’t make something true by sheer force of repetition.
That's a red herring which fails to address the content of my reply. If you don't accept what I said as true, then make your case. But if you're going to argue against that, then what else are you prepared to argue against? Do you believe that World War Two never happened? That we do not reside on planet Earth? That the present year is not 2019?
That's because you have bizarre fringe views which are far removed from the reasonable standards of a court of law.
Well, I don't go along with the crowd just to go along with the crowd, at least.
If the mere act of asserting the claim justifies it, I’ll just assert the opposite. Those books and speeches metaphorically changed the world.
Neither do I. But you do seem to deliberately go against it, even when doing so is going against good sense.
The burden lies with you, just as it lies with the Flat Earther.
Nope. Don't do that, either.
I'm my own arbiter, regardless of whether it goes along with the crowd or not.
What do you see as the value of having a category of "hate crimes"?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you just make your own poor judgements regarding topics like this, rather than as a result of an aversion to conformity and common sense.
It sends a twofold message worth sending about crime and discrimination.
I’m not the one pretending words can “change the world”, which is the premise of sorcery.
So you think it's decreasing crime over simply just having whatever offense be a crime without being a "hate crime"?
No, you're the one attempting to portray something really fucking obvious as though it is an absurdity, which is just a fallacious appeal to ridicule.
I'm not the one arguing that we live on a giant spinning rock in space! Ha! What twaddle! What fairy tale did you get that from?! What kind of a name is, "Earth", anyway? There's no such thing as planets, that's make-believe!
This argument works just as well from our side:
"No, you're the one attempting to portray something really fucking obvious as though it is an absurdity."
It's an evergreen for whatever we want to use it for, I suppose.
I made no such claim.
What makes the message worth sending then? What's its practical value?
Important parts of history claimed that speech is causal to actions? I must have missed that class.
“It’s obvious” isn’t a sufficient enough argument.
Rather than having the abstract discussion that seems to taking place so far, I recommend that everyone peruse what bigots are saying on the White Nationalist Stormfront forum. It can get pretty chilling.
Well your historical reference is only compelling if you already have the stance you have. Its not an example that makes your case any more than the Hitler example. You can make as many such references as you want, they don’t agree with you as to whats actually happening in those examples.
Weimar Germany had fairly modern hate speech laws, under which Hitler and his party were routinely jailed and forbidden to speak. He used the persecution as justification for censoring others and denying civil rights.
That’s the problem. Hitler believed in censorship for views he despised. In a free society we cannot go about silencing views we despise. If you don’t believe in free speech for views you despise, you don’t believe in free speech.
I agree except for Hitler using his persecution as justification. Maybe he did, but thats not really whats salient here. Whats salient is that Hitler used the same laws and policies designed to prevent “hate speech” in order to suppress opposing speech.
Laws, including “hate speech” ones, are like a tool. When Saint Whiteknight the Great puts down the tool after saving us from the 4th Reich or whatever, old Captain Racist Fuckface Mcgee is going to be right there waiting to pick it up and use it.
Lets not put the tools in place for Fuckface Mcgee, ok? Can we be done now?
It just depends on the policy we're talking about. People have a choice in how they act, but that doesn't necessarily give them a choice in how they're acted upon. That's the same with speech. You might not have a choice to not hear something someone says (it depends on the circumstance), but you have a choice with respect to how you act in response to the speech.
Exactly.
When you refer to it as views I despise, that puts a subjective spin on it. I despise some right wing ideology, but I absolutely believe they should be able to voice their views. It boils down to whether or not there are standards that are more objective that can be applied. For example, do you think we should allow a public call-to-arms to start killing blacks? IMO, it's appropriate to silence that sort of speech.
Found it rather relevant.
I know that's what you were asking for. I'm interested in why.
Are you really so naive as to think that social sciences are capable of delivering unequivocal proofs of forces in social dynamics? I doubt that.
So you knew full well that whatever I was able to find by way of evidence would be arguable.
So why did you ask me to find it, knowing that you intended to find its flaw in order to maintain your position? Perhaps you thought me naive enough to be thrown by such a response, I don't know.
We all develop theories which fit a narrative we feel some attraction to. We all view evidence to support that narrative with little critical analysis and evidence against it we rip to shreds. I do it, you do it, we all do. So what's the point in you going through this whole "show me the evidence" dance? This is not some outlandish new claim I'm making. I'm not trying to prove crop circles are made by aliens. We're discussing a matter which our epistemic peers have raised as important enough to legislate on. We can take it as given that there is sufficient evidence to convince some of those epistemic peers, but not others. Do you really think that you - an unqualified, chat room poster - are going to spot the killer flaw in behavioural psychology that no one before you has noticed? Are you that arrogant?
Behavioural psychologists think that the link between hate speech and violence is sufficient to warrant limiting hate speech. That is the conclusion of the European courts. That conclusion is flawed by a lack of good evidence in a manner which cannot ever be corrected, evidence of that quality is impossible to come by in social science.
So the real question for anyone not qualified in psychology is not to analyse the evidence, but to ask "what do we do with insufficient evidence when we know that sufficient evidence is impossible to come by?"
Your answer seems to be to not legislate, but I haven't yet heard an argument supporting that position apart from the lack of unequivocal evidence, which was a given in the first place.
How come speech is capable of causing good (such that its removal is a loss), but it is not capable of causing bad?
Free speech is what allows a society to thrive, diagnose, improve and correct itself. Stifle it and you introduce stagnation and ignorance. Ignorant folk are the easiest to control.
Does psychology have any kind of data on people exposed to different forms of free speech in parallel? i.e Different ideas? Hate speech and counter-hate speech, for example? Are there demographics more or less likely to succumb to hate speech?
Because they're idiots. You're right, the examples I gave won't work on you if you're an idiot.
But how does free speech achieve this if speech acts have no causal effects? How does free speech make people diagnose, improve and correct things, I thought speech was supposed to be incapable of making people do anything?
Or, to put it another way. If we can rely on the good sense of individuals not to be swayed by hate speech, why can we not rely on the good sense of individuals to diagnose and correct society's problems without needing to be prompted to do so by an opposition rally?
Quoting Necrofantasia
No. None that I know of. The massive problem with social sciences is that it is almost impossible to properly control for secondary factors. We just cannot (ethically or practically) set up experiments with sufficient control groups to actually demonstrate anything to the level of accuracy expected in other fields. The question I'm interested in (of which this debate is just an example) is what do we do about that. Do we just throw our hands up and say "we might as well just guess"?
Quoting Necrofantasia
Yes. Take a look at the paper I linked for Terrapin. It talks about the multiple influences which are correlated with hate crime, of which incitement by peers is only one.
And there are not. :grin:
Weren't you reading what I was writing? I'm challenging that there's the correlation that you're claiming there is.
Quoting Isaac
I already clarified that I'm saying nothing at all about proof.
Again, I was challenging that there's the correlation that you're claiming there is. A way to counter that is to show the correlation. That doesn't mean that any arbitrary claim about a correlation would necessarily be accepted simply because someone made it. We have to critically examine the methodology. But that's nothing about proof.
Not allowing people to say/express whatever they feel like saying is bad in my opinion. Because we're not allowing something that they wish to do, where the thing in question is only consensual with respect to the parties involved in the action in question.
"Parties involved in the action" excludes observers, by the way.
Letting people do what they want to consensually do is a "good in itself." Prohibiting them from doing what they consensually want to do is problematic in itself. (In my opinion, of course--this stuff is always someone's opinion.) It's not about speech causing anything else.
Something only becomes nonconsensual, where that's a problem, when someone's action has a significant, causal physical affect on someone else (re significant, I'd say it has to be longer-term, where the effects have to be observable on a macro level), where, of course, the person who was affected didn't consent to whatever it is.
But why should your "challenge" be given the time of day? This is not much different from someone "challenging" that London is the capital of England. We already know that speech can and does influence our course of action. (And the concept of influence wouldn't make any sense without cause and effect).
Exactly. Absolutely any claim I forward will have flaws in its methodology. The flaws are absolutely inherent in social sciences and cannot be eliminated. So what do you think you - with little or no background knowledge in psychology - are going to bring to a critical analysis of the methodology that experts in the field have not already brought?
I provide you with a paper, you criticise it's methodology. I provide you with a summary (where such criticisms have presumably been aired already), you criticise it for not having details of the actual research. What is the point of this line of argument?
If you want to argue that there exists nothing anyone considers to be evidence of a correlation, then what I have provided (plus the very fact that serious organisations are even considering action) has already disproven that.
If you want to argue that no one has provided evidence of a correlation whose methodology is flawless then we'll done, you win, no one has. Now what? Are you arguing that no matter what the consequences we take no action at all without solid evidence despite knowing that such evidence is impossible to come by?
I'd never be saying anything like it "should." It's just a matter of whether you care whether I agree with something, whether you care if I have a particular view, etc.
Of course, I'd find it odd that someone keeps responding to me and apparently trying to convince me of something if they on the other hand say that they don't care whether I agree or have the same view, but people can be odd.
Why? Is this just a foundational feeling you have, or do you have some reason to think its bad. It seems like a really odd thing to decide is bad on the face of it.
You don't think whether your "challenge" is reasonable or warranted should be a matter of concern?
No, it won't. Here's an easy example where that wouldn't be the case, an easy example of something where I'd say, "That's not flawed methodology:"
An experiment is set up where we have, say, 500 people in an auditorium who are exposed to hate speech (however we define it in the experiment--however we define it would be fine)--say via an hour-long lecture or something. We then monitor those 500 people for a set period of time, let's say a week, and we note how many of them engaged in violent incidents (which we'd also have to define, but any way we define it that bears some resemblance to what's conventionally called violence would be fine) in that span.
To make a correlation claim stronger there, we'd have another group of 500 people who were given a lecture with no hate speech, and we monitor them for a week afterwards, too.
Our two groups should be more or less "randomly" selected, which we could easily do from any larger population.
I wouldn't say that has any methodological flaws in making a statement about a correlation. Maybe someone else would say that, but I wouldn't.
This isn't the only example that I'd say has no methodological problems for stating a correlation. It's just an example that falsifies your claim that I'd say that any claim has methodological flaws.
Yes. Again, I have a problem with not allowing people to engage in whatever consensual actions they'd like to engage in. That's not resting on some other stance for me.
It's not that unusual of a stance. It's the basis of libertarianism for example.
Wherever his peculiar view stems from, I think there's only a very slim chance, if any at all, of him seeing sense enough to abandon it. He wears it as though it were a badge of bride instead of an indication of unreasonableness.
He seems to see, "I'm a free speech absolutist!", as something like, "I'm a champion of the people!", whereas the rest of us seem to see it more as something like, "I'm ready to be sectioned!".
Do you think that I might be challenging something where I don't feel that it's reasonable or warranted?
Immediately that would fail the ethical standards. I can assure you of that because I have been partly responsible for writing them.
Quoting Terrapin Station
We cannot risk inciting criminal action. Again, this would not get past the ethics board.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Good. So seeing as the first one wouldn't even get off the ground, perhaps you could move on to the next possibility.
No, but that's the problem. Do Flat Earthers not also feel that they're reasonable and warranted in their "challenges"?
Just extrapolate from the example. We'd need some way to see just who is exposed to the hate speech in question--we could use something where it wasn't set up as an experiment, for example, but where we have a relatively small group where we can identify the people exposed to it, and then we'd need to keep track of all of those people and see how many engage in violent actions in a relatively short period of time after the speech. And we could compare it to any other group exposed to some other speech, not the hate speech in question, and keep track of those people over the same period of time and compare how often they were violent.
I'm sure they do. So it wouldn't make any sense to ask them whether their challenges shouldn't be reasonable and warranted.
But even if it did go ahead, and even if no one committed any hate crime afterwards, that wouldn't prove anything of relevance. What if it's actually more like 1 in every 5,000 who are the kind of person receptive enough to hate speech to commit hate crime at a later date as a result? And it seems unlikely, in the real world, that a single speech would be enough, unless they already had a background in that kind of world. We know that this can and does happen, regardless. We don't need an experiment in the first place.
Individual liberty, even in libertarianism, is weighed against imposing restrictions on the liberty of others. So the importance of one liberty carries weight. What I'm asking is why the freedom to speak (what your community considers) hateful views is so important to you when such speech has no effect whatsoever. Even under strong libertarian principles, such a trivial and pointless freedom would be easily given up at the slightest risk that exercising it might infringe on the liberty of others. If it even so much as frightened a person into feeling they did not have the liberty to walk down the street, it should be dropped.
The question is, why do you cling to it like its the last vestige of freedom, demanding evidence of impossibly high standards before even considering giving it up, when the whole liberty is trivially useless to you?
Of course I wouldn't say that it "proves" anything, since that's a category error anyway.
I'd simply say that there's not a problem with the methodology.
If only 1 in 5,000 people are violent after exposure to hate speech, then it would much more strongly suggest that exposure to hate speech does NOT cause violence but the opposite.
I already explained this to you above:
"Parties involved in the action" excludes observers, by the way.
Letting people do what they want to consensually do is a "good in itself." Prohibiting them from doing what they consensually want to do is problematic in itself. (In my opinion, of course--this stuff is always someone's opinion.) It's not about speech causing anything else.
Something only becomes nonconsensual, where that's a problem, when someone's action has a significant, causal physical affect on someone else (re significant, I'd say it has to be longer-term, where the effects have to be observable on a macro level), where, of course, the person who was affected didn't consent to whatever it is.
That's not standard libertarianism. It's something you're making up/based on your own views rather. (Not that it matters if something is standard libertarianism, but you're attempting to argue here as if it is, as if that would have normative weight.)
Yes, I didn't get to mentioning the low sample size.
Don't be pedantic, like with "care" earlier. You know what I mean.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Of course you'd say that, because you're far too entrenched in your position to acknowledge any faults with it.
Quoting Terrapin Station
No, it wouldn't. It would suggest that it causes violence for approximately every 1 in 5,000 people, which would be more than enough reason for it to be banned. The population of London alone consists of around 8 million.
Again,. you presenting your objections is irrelevant to whether I'd have a problem with it. I'd be fine with that. A larger sample size would be fine, too, but not necessary for me to not have a problem with it.
Maybe I should say "Whatever I suggest you're going to say has methodological problems" lol
Are you suggesting standard libertarianism doesn't weight individual freedoms against the restriction of liberty of others?
So we've gone from complaining re an imaginarily anticipated objection to any methodology suggested to complaining that I'd not have a problem with some methodology. lol Basically, whatever I say, there will be a complaint about it.
Quoting S
If there's a correlation between hate speech and nonviolence so that 4,999 out of 5,000 people exposed to hate speech are not violent, then why can't we conclude that hate speech causes nonviolence? I thought that significant correlations were supposed to suggest causality, no?
Not that vaguely. I explained it and also copy-pasted the explanation again.
Yes. Almost certainly I will. That's the point I've been trying to make. I'm going to stick to my position unless you present me with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Unless you're a genius, your lack of background in psychology makes that very unlikely to happen.
You're going to stick to your idea unless I present you with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That's not going to happen because inherent methodological problems mean that no psychological evidence is ever going to be "overwhelming".
So what do we do now?
Okay. Maybe you'd do that but I wouldn't. I already gave examples of situations where I wouldn't at all say that.
Is there seriously NO study where we've simply followed people we know were exposed to hate speech, compared to people we know were not, where we've seen what the comparative correlations between hate speech and subsequent violence are?
Sorry, but that's just dumb. No one on my side of the argument ever suggested anything like a causal impact of 4,999 people for every 5,000. You think that we thought that hate speech was like 99.99% effective? Are you deliberately missing the point or something?
That's fair, but if the numbers are so small--say that we had 500,000 people not exposed to hate speech and only 60 were subsequently violent, and then 500,000 exposed to hate speech and 100 were subsequently violent, it's tough to say that suggests anything at all about a connection between the speech and violence, because it's basically a negligible difference that could be attributed to just about anything. (Although I'd agree that it might make a difference in establishing a correlation if we can show a similar difference in numbers over many iterations . . . although if we're dealing with numbers like that, we'd quickly run out of people)
I'm mocking the notion of there being a strong enough correlation to conclude that hate speech is causal to violence.
I think it's different when there is a systematic use of hate speech, by a government and much of the media. Though that's not the kind of experiment one caed upn run.
There have been psychological experiments where people/children have been told another group is bad or problematic and then they end up treating them worse. I suspect that skeptics will not find this convincing enough.
Oh, you did mention 'if' the numbers are small. If they are not, then some people are going to take it seriously.
I would also, then, add in other potential results. Like how other people not directly involved in the violence react to the violence. If there were significant changes in sympathy for victims, or victim blaming or indifference or justifying the violence in other ways, I think that should matter. It doesn't have to just be the violent acts, especially if we are dealing with something systematic.
Which is also dumb. It is evident that hate speech has an inflammatory effect on certain kinds of people under the right circumstances, and that this can and most likely has lead to hate crime. Just look at a case like that of Elliot Rodger, and similar or related cases, and the impact that that has had.
When we're just looking observationally at the world at large, it would be difficult to even say that there's been an increase in hate speech.
And then re crimes, there's a problem (again, when we're just looking at this broadly) of not knowing what, if any, hate speech someone was exposed to, and whether some of the hate speech we were looking at broadly wasn't uttered by some of the people committing the crimes in question (which undermines that the speech caused the action rather than both being symptomatic of something about that individual).
Had to refamiliarize myself with who he was just now, but the Wikipedia page says that, per his manifesto, "He explained that he wanted to punish women for rejecting him, and punish sexually active men because he envied them."
What is the hate speech connection supposed to be there. What speech did he hear (from someone else) that supposedly contributed to him being violent?
That this is even up for debate is a joke.
No idea who that is off the top of my head. Looking it up now.
Not that I needed to look him up to answer, actually, but no, of course I'd not say that someone should be held legally responsible for any crimes done subsequent to their speech.
I'm not in favor of any conspiracy laws, for example.
He was embroiled in incel culture, and he has since become a hero in the eyes of those who delve in that twisted world. I would not at all be surprised if others have been inspired by his crime and by his words and followed in his footsteps.
"He was embroiled in incel culture"--is this known from people knowing something like a username he used on a message board or something? And if so, wasn't he someone posting "hate speech" himself? If that's the case, why wouldn't we think that both his hate speech and his actions were symptomatic of something about him, rather than being caused by someone else's hate speech? How would we conclude the latter?
We already know that. That's not a proper response.
The Manchester bomber was inspired by Choudary's hate speech. He was a known acolyte of his. It would be totally unreasonable of you to deny the causal link here.
I think it would be totally unreasonable of you to claim a causal link.
Obviously, different people think that different things are reasonable.
Why are you drawing this out to such unnecessary and unreasonable lengths? What would it take for you to concede the point? What if some teenage boy had gone out and murdered a group of popular teenage girls at his school, and then killed himself, and left behind a suicide note and diary explicitly naming Elliot Rodger and incel culture as his motive?
Brain damage, probably.
Quoting S
I would say that he decided to take the actions he did, where he at least decided to credit Elliot Rodger as an influence on his decision (whether that was accurate or whether he had some ulterior motive for it, such as being S on thephilosophyforum and thinking it would "prove a point").
Yes, but you're the Flat Earther in this case.
Right so what started out as "that's just what libertarianism is" is now about the exact degree of vagueness libertarianism as a whole philosophy ascribes to restrictions on liberty.
Perhaps you could return the evidence favour and provide me with the quotes from the classic libertarian philosophers outlining the exact degree of vagueness below which liberties are not considered. Unless of course its "... something you're making up/based on your own views rather."
It matters here because if there is a weighing exercise to be done, then the weight you attach to the freedom to speak hateful things makes a difference.
Like any risk we weigh the harms and the liklihood of those harms coming to pass. So, if we ban hate speech, the harm is the loss of a small subset of public speech (the loss of which is trivial compared to other liberties), the liklihood of that being the case is 100%. The harm if we don't is potential loss of life, fear, inability to get work, housing, fair treatment. The probability of this being the case is whatever probability you ascribe to the results of the psychological and sociological investigations.
My problem is, that you must agree there is a non-zero chance that the correlation is causal (unless you're going to invoke your magic barrier which somehow prevents desires from being caused). The loss of liberty, if it were the case, would be massive. Whereas, the loss of liberty if we ban hate speech, whilst being 100% likely to happen, is absolutely trivial (by your understanding) compared to the other liberties I've mentioned, because it is of no further use.
It would be like banning purple hats because there's a possibility they might cause harm. The possibility in that case doesn't need to be very high because the loss of liberty (no more purple hat choices) is so tiny.
Decisions are influenced, and influences are causes in some respect. So you're conceding the point, then? What Elliot Rodger did and said was an indirect cause of the subsequent crime by his admirer?
and through all sorts of social, professional, governmental, court related, employer
punishments
made expressing emotions, heck, just in the form of sound and tears or whatever
a de facto crime in all sorts of contexts. There is no freedom to emote. That's the corner I'd start working. I think if we stop punishing, both through legal, illegal, social and policy/regulation methods, the expression of emotions, we will not get people jumping to violence so quickly.
You're the "video games cause violence" guy,
What? I didn't say that libertarianism was about "liberty" by the way. That's like people who think that "progressive rock" was literally about "progress."
Quoting Isaac
I'm not talking about "classic libertarian philosophers." I'm talking about people in the party and what their views are. I was involved with the party on local, state and national levels for awhile back in the late 80s and the 90s
Influences are not causes in any respect. Influences don't remove free will. Causes do.
"Indirect cause" would only make sense as something far back in a causal chain.
Oh, so you've already conceded. I must've missed that.
Well, and I'm actually serious about the sex assistance program(s). Watching the Rodger video, he strikes me as a guy just really frustrated about not being able to get laid (which must have been because of a "creepy," unusual personality--it certainly wouldn't have been a factor of his looks, his socio-economic status, etc.). If he had gotten laid, especially regularly, things would probably have turned out different.
haha
Of course they are. They're just prior causes. I already gave you an example, which you ignored. The writings of Marx influenced my thinking, which in turn was a causal factor in my act of purchasing books on Marx. Without that cause in the chain, I wouldn't have purchased books on Marx. That's fundamental to the explanation.
That's blatantly begging the question.
Prior causes? As opposed to simultaneous causes or causes after the fact?
Quoting S
You chose, against better judgment, to purchase Marx books. Good judgment would have been purchasing books about the Marx Brothers.
If you had been caused to buy the books, you wouldn't have had a choice.
That's not what "begging the question" conventionally refers to, and you consider conventional usage correct, so per your views, that's incorrect.
A good challenge for you is to find the speech that will cause me to think that speech can be causal to actions.
Prior cause: a cause further back in the chain of cause and effort.
Sprechen Sie Englisch?
Quoting Terrapin Station
Either I didn't choose to do so, or I did so in a way that was consistent with what I just told you. Either way, I'm still right.
Quoting Terrapin Station
In full context, it is an example of begging the question. You're just doing the whole autistic/pedant act again.
All causes are prior to what they cause. But sure, a cause can be further back temporally in a causal chain.
How was I "begging the question 'in full context'"?
Yeah, we haven't touched on those issues much. It's another big can of worms.
That test would clearly be compromised by your involvement.
But an obvious example would be if I was in my local pub and a newcomer asked me where the gents were, and I told him that they were over there, whilst pointing to the door on the other side of the pub leading back outside, and the newcomer took me at my word and walked over to the door, only to discover that he had been mislead.
There are about a million-and-one examples of this sort of thing, but I'm sure you'll find some way to explain them away rather than admit the obvious.
Maybe you think that other people are essentially robots?
Silly point.
If people are essentially robots, then you are essentially a robot with a malfunction.
Prior cause isn't a distinction. All causes are prior. That's a core part of the idea.
Obviously I meant that it was a cause prior to other particular causes within a particular context relating to what we were discussing. It was very silly of you to misinterpret what I meant in that way, as though I was randomly coming out with a linguistic redundancy for no apparent reason.
Because you're assuming your conclusion in part of your argument. You would first need to reach the conclusion that we have free will, which you haven't done with me here.
But an influence can occur immediately prior to what it's influencing. So why would you classify influences as "causes prior to other causes"? That's why I wouldn't read it that way. It's stupid.
When I'm talking about causes and influences and their difference, I'm not forwarding an argument.
I classified them that way because that's what they are, and your point about immediacy only makes sense if you ignore the context of what we were talking about and insert your own in order to make this silly point of yours where it looks like you're trying to prove me wrong about something I never meant or intended, even though in reality you're just appearing oblivious and looking to score a point.
In the example I gave, the influence is a prior cause. It is a cause prior to my act, which is itself a cause. Do you understand that? Can you stop wasting time now? Or should I book you in with a brain surgeon?
In the example you provided, why couldn't the influence be immediately prior to the act?
Because it wasn't. I should know, it was an example taken from my life. That simply wasn't how the events unfolded, and I don't possess a time machine to go back and alter the past. I first acquired an interest in his writings, which was the influence I referred to, and it wasn't until much later that I actually purchased those books.
Wait, the example this tangent stemmed from was this: "What if some teenage boy had gone out and murdered a group of popular teenage girls at his school, and then killed himself, and left behind a suicide note and diary explicitly naming Elliot Rodger and incel culture as his motive? "
That is an example taken from your life?
Oh my god. Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to. :up:
:roll:
But that's what led to the influence comments. There was no other example between that and the influence comments. So if you're trying to sell the "prior cause" nonsense as being pertinent to the example at hand at the time the comment was made, that's the example we were discussing.
You must have lost track of the conversation:
Quoting S
Someone call the brain surgeon!
Note that you treat unrestricted free speech as the ultimate good.
If I had to pick something I treat as "the ultimate good" it would be unrestricted consensual actions. Speech would be just one example. (Again, remember that I don't consider it necessary for observers or non-physically-forced bystanders to consent; they're not parties in the actions in question. They're passive instead.)
However, I'd be picking that in the manner that I might pick "My 10 favorite musical artists" or something like that, where the answer isn't so black & white really, and I'm picking 10 just to pick 10 and play along--even though they'd be 10 of my favorites, just not THE 10 favorites period.
I would say that another "ultimate good," and unfortunately one that we're much further away from in practice, is creating a system where people don't have to worry about things like housing, food, health care, education, employment, travel/mobility, leisure activities/leisure time, etc.
Any intention of addressing the actual substance of my post, or just the quibble about the meaning of libertarianism (although claiming that libertarianism is not about liberty was a classic worth hearing).
Would you accept that, if it were the case that a person's freedom to walk safely down the street were restricted by hate speech then their freedom to do so is of greater importance than the other's freedom to speak as they see fit?
No. That's way too vague. What I'd say is that if hate speech were a causal action that resulted in physical forces nonconsensually applied to the person walking down the street, where we're talking about something that has a significant physical effect on the person (macro-observable physical effects, say, at least a week after the event), then I'd have no problem considering the hate speech in question a crime/I'd have no problem prohibiting it.
OK, so granted your conditions pertain. Is there some natural force in existence that specifically prevents such a hypothetical from being the case? If so, what force is that, and does that force have a 100% chance of being the case?
No.
It's just that we'd need to show that it's the case--we'd need to have good reasons to believe it, which would involve empirical evidence, in order to move ahead with it.
Right. And finally (I will get to my point after this, though I suspect you know where I'm going, I just want to be clear though)...how would you rate the liberty to say "Jews should all be killed" compared to the liberty to walk down the street, get a job, a house, live wherever you choose and retain your property?
Personally, I’m an absolutist when it comes to free speech. I believe all speech should be allowed.
I don't know how to answer "rating" such things. I'd not prohibit anyone from saying anything, walking down any public street, getting a job, etc.
:up:
If those two liberties clashed (ie you can't have one without removing the other) which would you remove and by what degree?
It's not a complicated situation in rights management. One person's exercise of rights infringes on another and they must be weighed against one another.
Or are you suggesting there's some force in the world which ensures that one person exercising their liberty never constrains another?
I don't frame anything in terms of "liberties clashing" (or "rights" for that matter). I don't know why I have to explain this so many times. All that matters in this regard is consent violations.
So you're saying that there is never a need to decide whether to allow one person's liberty when it might constrain another's?
Not on my view, because I don't frame anything in terms of "allowing liberties" or "constraining liberties."
What I allow is any and all consensual actions, and disallow nonconsensual actions of a certain severity. That's it. (At least when we're talking about this sort of stuff.)
Being afraid to walk down the street because someone is throwing rocks isn't any sort of consent violation.
If someone hits you with a rock as you walk down the street, and it's a bad enough injury, then yes, that's a consent violation. (Well, assuming you don't say you consented to being hit with the rock.)
Ah. So you disagree with all laws aimed at protecting people from harm. You would allow people to throw rocks at passersby, shoot guns at them presumably? Only if they actually hit has anything happened worth legislating against?
I wouldn't say that, but I don't frame it that way. It's too vague.
I'd have laws that punish someone for hitting someone else for a rock nonconsensually, where it's an injury that's macro-observable at least a week later, say. That's a law against harm, but it's pretty specific.
I'd also have a "criminal threatening" category (which I can paste the details of if you're interested . . . I pasted it here recently, though I don't recall where).
But I'm certainly not going to have a law based on someone being afraid to walk down a street.
OK. At least your clarity has saved me from wasting any more time. You're clearly either a sociopath or (more likely I suspect) simply pretending to be one for effect. Either way there's no point continuing this discussion, our fundamental views regards compassion are too far apart for there to be any hope that I would even want to understand where you're coming from, let alone be able to.
As I've been explaining over and over in this thread, I don't accept that we can at all demonstrate that there are negative consequences (especially of the sort that I'd legislate against, as I've been describing just today, in posts just above)
:smirk:
(The emojis on this board stink by the way)
You should know this well if you really have a background in psychology, Isaac.
That means that either we potentially ban any arbitrary thing--just in case someone is afraid of it (offended by it, etc.)--or we have people making laws based only on the fears that they deem "reasonable," where such designations are completely subjective (this is an ontological fact), where they're going to be based on social norms, etc.
Yes. The second one. Because the third option is that we have no laws at all preventing actions which severely curtail people's freedom in blatantly obvious ways just to adhere to some stupid philosophical ideal.
Making everyone's lives a misery just to adhere to some philosophical ideal has been tried before you know...
That same “stupid philosophical ideal” should prevent one from curtailing another’s freedom. I would be worried when people need laws to teach them right from wrong.
Free speech is not some objective moral value. You value it because of what you perceive to be the positive consquences. The negatives have not been demonstrated to your satisfaction, but neither have you demonstrated the positive consequences to my (and perhaps others') satisfaction.
Then be worried.
Right. So you're not actually basing policy on persons' emotional reactions, either. You're basing them on the emotional reactions you're subjectively giving approval to. Which is just another way of trying to enforce your personal whims.
There are no consequences, positive or negative, to speech.
I’m getting there.
Yes. Because remember the third option... Life's not perfect. Sometimes we have to accept a very substandard compromise where there's no better alternative. Personally I'd rather live in a world where people are prevented by law from throwing rocks off buildings and where the law might also ban something I consider to be fine, than live in a world where I can't even walk down the street, but at least the government hasn't made my hat choices illegal.
They why do it at all?
Nothing is an objective moral value. There are no such things.
Quoting Relativist
Because there are no objective moral values, I basically take the track of "letting people what they want to do" as much as possible. That's not completely possible, because then we'd ironically end up with people controlling others to a greater extent--some people want to control others, via force if they need to, which they'll gladly invoke. So I take the approach of allowing all consensual actions and prohibiting nonconsensual actions, which is forcibly controlling others. This is also why I have the policy about prisons that I do, by the way (where I don't at all agree with how we've set up prisons--I'd do something very different with the people we need to separate from mainstream society because they want to control others via physical force, etc.).
Quoting Relativist
The positive consequence is letting people do what they want a la consensual actions, rather than controlling others.
Now, setting your confused distractions and nitpicking aside, what's your response to that? To block out reason, disregard cause and effect, and play on words like "decision" and "choice" as though these are somehow magically independent of cause and effect, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary?
Here's my policy on "criminal threatening" by the way:
Threatening anyone should only be a crime when it's an immediate, "physical" threat in the sense of potential victims being within the range of the threatening instruments (whether just one's body, or weapons, or causally connected remote devices or substances, etc.), which are actual and not simply claimed, so that (a) either a verbal (or written, etc.) or body language or weaponry threat is explicitly made/performed, (b) the threat is reasonably considered either a serious premeditation to commit nonconsensual violence or something with negligent culpability should nonconsensual physical damage result, and (c) the threatened party couldn't reasonably escape or evade the threatened actions should the threatener decide or negligently carry them out at that moment.
So in some circumstances, simply the guy throwing rocks off the building would be a problem.
Secondly, it depends on what the property owner is consenting to or not. (We hadn't gotten into property issues at all, since it wasn't pertinent to anything we were talking about.)
Aside from that, you can simply walk down the street and avoid that building. That's not that hard to do. If the guy hits you with a rock, then either he's going to be in trouble or it wasn't something that injured you much if at all. So the risk of that is going to stop a lot of people from throwing rocks off of buildings (or whatever).
That's the non-perfect option I'll go with.
There are numerous reasons why we speak, none of which require moving matter with articulated symbols.
Decisions/choices aren't decisions/choices if they're caused. Compatibilism makes no sense.
So I'm right to dismiss your point about removing free will because it wasn't part of any argument you're forwarding?
But why? You still haven't given your reasons apart from a desire to adhere to some random philosophical principle. You have a choice. Ask everyone who doesn't want to risk being hit by rocks to avoid certain buildings, or ask people to stop throwing rocks. Apart from a random philosophical principle, why would you rather live in the former world and not the latter. What on earth is the advantage?
You didn't restrict your comments previously to telekinesis. You said "no consequences" not just no macro-scale physical consequences on inanimate objects.
I'd say I answered this above in a response to Relativist, but you probably consider that a "random philosophical principle."
What I don't know, though, is how any answer here wouldn't either be a "random philosophical principle" or just some arbitrary whim. What other option would you say there is? What else do you think we're doing when we make choices about this sort of stuff?
Well, zero consequence beyond the dispelling of breath and scratches and marks on paper,
"Letting people do what they want" is not a consequence, it's just a generalization of "let people say what they want". I'm guessing you must think it's bad to inhibit people from doing what they want. Is that it? If so, why do you regard this as bad?
Terrapin's bizarre and extreme views on such matters would make for the stuff of dystopian fiction.
Our objectives and strategies are not either merely a collection of arbitrary whims or strict philosophical principles. Our foundational positions may be, but we (most of us) tend to use reason from there to decide how to get what we want out of what we've got.
What I'm struggling to understand is that you seem to have confused method (usually determined by reason) with objective (determined arbitrarily by feeling).
Right. So again, why would you engage in an activity which has zero consequences. Why even choose English words, why not just gdfrfdfljjdfkkkj cfddffffkjj vfdfkkjjf mjdkff kdfjjd kjfkgdgjkjf?
Not being able to walk down a street because someone is throwing rocks off of a building is not a negative consequence in his world. Utter madness.
Yes. Didn't I explicitly say that? I thought I had.
Well that's the whole point. It's not as if I'm saying that the the guy could have a problem throwing rocks off the building on a whim. It's reasoned from my foundations (which I expressed above).
I use language so that I may be understood. Allow me to reformulate, as you raise a good point. Maybe “zero consequences” isn’t correct. My speaking surely has consequences for me, but how you react to them is a consequence of you.
Speech.
That's what he asked about.
We need laws as an authoritative reference point to enforce order and to protect citizens. Only a fool would have such faith in people as to actually believe that just knowing right from wrong would be sufficient.
The law I want to protect me is not a law prohibiting some speech, but a law prohibiting laws prohibiting speech.
I can’t disagree with that.
To no one's satisfaction, with a possible exception of just one, meaning the Trump supporter who keeps contradicting himself and has been accused of trolling.
The oceans don't contain a single drop of water.
You might need to upgrade your manipulation tactics. They reveal more about you than anyone else.
So close, and yet so far. With a simple qualification to that, we'd be in agreement. I am a liberal, as are many others, but we keep our liberalism within reason, whereas you throw reason out of the window.
What qualification do you use--something vague like "harm"?
Then they aren't decisions or choices. But I reject that. I think that it makes more sense to continue to talk about decisions and choices, but to conceive of them more sensibly than you do, so as to avoid ending up at the absurd conclusion you reach.
The UK recently put out a paper about “online harms”, using it as justification for regulating speech on the internet.
“Harms”, premised on the notion that words and ideas have certain harmful consequences, is the penultimate excuse for censors. Words will have bad effects, therefor words must be silenced.
Yes, an example of moving the goalposts. (And it's weird that he keeps talking about telekinesis and sorcery when no one else is).
How is it a decision or choice if there's only one option?
Well, and anyone can consider anything a harm to themselves, for any reason. So we can't just go with a blanket "harm" criterion. So then it becomes a matter of what someone wants to count versus what they don't want to count, which is really just an excuse to disallow stuff they don't personally like.
Well, dream on.
The clue was in my reply.
Because there are no objective moral values, I basically take the track of "letting people do what they want to do" as much as possible, within reason.
That’s what happens when one applies the harm principle to deeds that are not harmful. Hate speech is just the latest heresy to the latest orthodoxy.
There isn't only one option. I think you need to backtrack and explain yourself properly before directing such loaded questions my way.
Then I think this (together with with your rampant sociopathy) is where we are irreconcilable. I just can't understand any foundational principle that's so convoluted. Most people have things like human well-being, getting to heaven, natural order (or what they perceive it to be). They then argue from there what actually constitutes any of those things and how best to achieve them. But to have as ones foundational position as a desire to let everyone do what they want to the maximum extent, even if that makes most people miserable. I just can't get my head around that.
Still - each to their own. Fortunately people like me (or vaguely like me) outnumber people like you significantly so we can force you to behave with a semblance of human compassion even if you don't want to.
Funnily enough, foundations in madness lead to more madness.
How does your speech have consequences for you. What is the mechanism by which those consequences come about?
Just out of curiosity, if an Islamist acolyte of a preacher of hate and violence against infidels murdered those whom you most care about, you'd still see no problem with allowing hate speech? You'd be happy for the preacher to continue his nefarious activities unobstructed by pesky laws?
It’s not a desire to “let everyone do what he wants”. It’s a desire to oppose state and mob coercion, as is evident by your desire to force us into conformity.
Like any act I perform it serves a certain purpose.
My point was that we judge whether or not to restrict free speech based on the anticipated consequences, since we agree "objective moral values" don't exist.
And by what mechanism is such coercion exercised? If words have no consequences, it can't be words. If the response to someone throwing rocks of a building is "don't go near that building" then it can't be laws - just don't live in that country. So what exactly is the nature of this coercion you disapprove of?
How does it serve a purpose? By what mechanism?
How does actual working vision help you if it has no causal effects? Applying a coloured lens to your glasses is not "causal" to action, but it sure alters how you perceive the world.
There are different dimensions to information. Isolated data, Data + Context, Data + Context + Repercussions on "greater picture" , etc.
It's the level of awareness and relevancy and your internal variables that makes you decide to do things.
Much like you won't dodge a baseball coming at you from a TV screen, but you will if it's face to face, or you won't if you're supposed to get hit as you're acting in a movie being filmed.
That's the problem of academics vs real life, academic research and statistics allows you to isolate variables, but in the process, the fidelity of the picture it has of reality is potentially compromised.
We are both speaking out of a concern for humanity, I understand this much. Our suggestions are just coloured by different experiences. I know what censoring speech does to a society because I lived it. It is imperceptible until outsiders point out the differences.
Hell, North Americans barely have any clue of half the things their government gets up to until you get whistleblowers like Snowden. That's why I am very reluctant to anything that gives a government, especially one that isn't transparent, that kind of fundamental power. Ask them to police ideas, and they sure as hell will.
I think a large measure of a society's "resistance" to hate speech is anchored in two factors, Upbringing and Education. Hate speech in formative years without proper guidance or alternatives can essentially become a "lens" that colours someone's view of the world, because as people grow they become less curious, more reluctant to take in new paradigms.
My best friend and I disagree on this topic a lot, as he suggests giving free speech to fascists normalizes their ideology, and prevents others from recognizing them as the threats they are. Going to have a chat with him on the matter today, see if my opinion changes at all.
I disagree. Our world views are largely a consequence of our environment, and speech constitutes a large part of that environment.
Coercion is the use or threat of using physical violence against someone else's person or property. I say something you don’t like, you punch me in the nose. Your actions are not a consequence of my speech but of your tendency to use coercion.
Then how come my speech isn’t contributing to your world view? It seems to have the opposite effect.
Biology is the mechanism, I suppose.
You've switched from "consequence" to "contribution". Moving the goalposts again, I see.
One consequence which your speech tends to have on me is that it has me laughing or shaking my head in disbelief.
That’s a lie, I said “contributing”. Again you’re revealing more about yourself than you can about reality.
Haha, yes, I know you said "contributing". And that's a variation of "contribution", but you weren't originally talking about contribution. You switched from talking about consequences to talking about contribution.
I have no clue what your argument is here.
You have no clue, generally. Do you know what it means to move the goalposts, in the context of informal logic?
When we're talking causality, there's only one option.
Contribute is a verb, consequence is a noun. Do you know the difference?
So if your speaking has consequences for you via biological mechanisms, then what biological barrier is in place to prevent those same consequences in others?
Yes. They're two different words, with two different meanings. The word "contribute" has more of a positive connotation (as in e.g. "What did you contribute to the team?") which "consequence" lacks. Do you understand that? And do you understand that you keep moving the goalposts in response to questions and criticism?
It is absolutely causal. The chain of causality between light hitting the lens and changes in the state of the brain is one of the more well documented sequences. It absolutely has physical consequences on the brain, and it is uncontroversial to think that alterations to brain state affect behaviour. Never been drunk...?
You keep conflating separate things (correlation and causation for example) to the point I'm starting to think this discussion isn't intellectually honest. Your eyes are not your brain, they are connected, but they aren't the same thing.
Why would I use the noun “consequence” instead of the verb “contribute”? No I do not understand
No, you still need to explain yourself properly. This is going to be a needlessly lengthy discussion if you keep responding like that. Why don't you start from the beginning instead of somewhere in the middle? That would make more sense, would it not?
By the very fact that your biology is not my biology.
You do realise that "contribute" is not a variation in verb form of the noun "consequence", right?
You should have stuck to talking about consequences if you wanted to avoid committing the fallacy of moving the goalposts. Your interlocutor made a point in response to your point about consequences, but you then moved the goalposts by framing your question in reply to him as though you had been talking about contributions, when you had not. Do you find it difficult to stay on point?
Where did I say they are the same thing? We're talking about causality. It is sufficient that they are connected for effects in one to have consequences on the other.
You do know sound travels through air don't you?
What if the speech sparks violence, and consequently violence sparks genocide, and consequently genocide sparks the annihilation of the human race?
What is the reason to allow for this possibility, rather than bar it?
It is a parasite - and like any parasite has the right to live, but would you pardon its hindrance to other life?
I think at the core of it is the fact you insist, time and time again, that correlation is causation. It is functional conflation even if it isn't literal.
That, and the isolation of a single factor without considering the larger variable pool that affects individual and group behaviour.
People don't necessarily arrive to the same conclusions from the same isolated bits of sensory input and knowledge, because the internal variables that factor in processing that input are never identical.
I don't know how to word this in a way that you will get, and I've already illustrated it from several different angles only to have them disregarded, so I just give up.
You need a mind more eloquent than mine.
Why couldn't you do a "what if" in the same vein about any arbitrary thing?
"What if anger about being spurned romantically sparks violence, and that violence sparks revenge, and that revenge sparks genocide?" etc.
So let's prohibit romantic spurning.
We could prohibit any and everything with such speculation.
:brow:
It's not romantic spurning to be prohibited, but the advocation of violence as a fair mean to settle an issue.
The problem is not with the speech or the spurning, but the violence they advocate.
Wait, so you don't have a problem with the violence/genocide/etc. itself, but just the advocating of violence?
Why are you bringing up the idea of it sparking violence, then genocide, etc.?
Wait your turn, please.
So if something else caused violence, genocide, etc. that's no problem?
It is not a difficult idea to grasp.
But yes, even if you believe large scale violence can be caused solely by speech (which is a questionable proposition, but also another topic altogether), such a risk should be accepted in order to uphold this freedom.
Moreover, before we start sacrificing something as fundamental as free speech, shouldn't we first aim to educate people? There is something profoundly pitiful about an adult who is hurt by a stranger's words.
Sure. And do you want to allow those things or?
How much of free speech is being sacrificed with the removal of violent speech, as opposed to its preservation? Would you weigh the attrition of each for me?
As for aiming to educate folk, that is indeed a step forward - but what would you educate them in?
Perhaps merely empowering the intellect would add to the tension?
And may I ask, also, what and why is it pitiful that an adult may be hurt by a stranger's words?
How different do you see it as opposed to an adult being spat in their face by a stranger?
The problem is, as is being demonstrated by contemporary politics, "violence" can be interpreted in many ways. Such ambiguity should never be brought into contact with fundamental human rights, because it will inevitably be used to undermine them.
Quoting Shamshir
True intellect never degenerates into violence.
A statement can be true, in which case an intellectual should be the first to accept it as such.
It can be false, in which case the intellectual may try to show the person the error of his ways. If he fails, he may pity the fool for his ignorance.
If it is an opinion it is no better or worse than blind faith, and an intellectual should put little value in it to begin with.
Quoting Shamshir
Nothing happens when someone insults you. It's one's own insecure ego that hurts, not another's words. After all, if the man has a point one should be grateful for the information. If it is false, one should carry on with their business and pay no mind. If it is opinion, well what is opinion but blind faith?
TV commercials do not cause every viewer to immediately go and and purchase the advertised product. Nevertheless they are effective at inducing some demand for the product.
But advocation of violence and rallies to violence are not ambiguous in their intent, are they?
So with safety being an inherent right of all living things, that they try so desperately to preserve, is it to be traded for the luxury of abrasive contention that is more aligned with as you put it - the 'insecure ego', rather than freedom from contention altogether?
I find the idea of abrasive speech constituting freedom of speech, quite misaligned, as it actually inhibits freedom of speech - which so many appear to fawn over.
That one may have the right and ability to freely speak, does not mean one should.
Quoting Tzeentch
True intellect is not free from violence, if true intellect constitutes merely knowing things.
As Tzeentch you should know this.
Yet if true intellect contains the more subtle things that allot for the likes of 'freedom', then maybe it is something more than merely true intellect?
Though it be true that harming a person will bring them pain, there is nothing in the intellect that prohibits this. No, this is merely an observation.
Quoting Tzeentch
Perhaps it is one's own insecure ego that hurts, like an open wound being smothered with salt - in this case, words.
If that wound was not there in the first place, the salt would not hurt. Yet is it fair to rub the salt in? Should it be done, just because it may be done?
What about bandaging it up? Perhaps there are other words that could be used to that effect?
In which case, why use the hurtful ones, over the mending ones?
Though what may be said, may be true - a violent demonstration will only feed feed the insecure ego.
Neither party will gain from this, both will lessen.
Do you guys have any other reasons for your position on hate speech or is it just the causal stuff?
I ask because the causal stuff isnt going anywhere at this point, perhaps the discussion would become interesting again if you came at it differently? They aren’t going to concede anything or alter their view on what you are saying on causality cuz they think its absurd, ridiculous, sociopathic etc etc
So any other reasons that could be discussed?
In the process of forbidding these, free speech is put on the slippery slope that I have described. As such, let the instigators instigate. When they resort to violence, they break the law and should be dealt with as such.
Quoting Shamshir
People can have heated debate about anything. The fragile ego will find ways to express itself. If people were to desire freedom from contention, then perhaps everyone should lose their tongue at birth. No, in order for free speech to be worth anything, we must risk contention and offense, and deal with it like adults, instead of like children.
In the words of Descartes: "Whenever anybody has offended me, I try to raise my soul so high that the offense cannot reach it."
The safety of the people may be safeguarded by an effective police force and justice system.
Quoting Shamshir
How?
Quoting Shamshir
I will rephrase my point;
If one's intellect propels one to violent action, one may not be as wise as they think they are.
Quoting Shamshir
Firstly, I do not like the comparison between physical and psychological pain. Physical pain is, for most, an involuntary response that physiologically bypasses the intellect. Offense is a voluntary response.
As to your question; why allow people to rub proverbial salt?
Humanity is imperfect, and as such it is only expected that some will make sub-optimal use of their freedoms.
But the real question here is, how come someone perceives words as being so powerful as to be like salt upon wounds?
Again, whatever is being said can be true, in which case it should be accepted no matter how much it hurts and one should be grateful instead of offended.
If it is false or opinion, then what is there to be offended about? The disposition of the other? If one thinks the offender is so totally wrong in their beliefs, wouldn't pity be a much more appropriate emotion rather than indignation? Seek to make him see the error of his ways rather than silence him.
If some offender is being purposefully hurtful, why put any value in his words? Much like with a high-school bully, ask oneself how his situation came to be, and soon enough one will find pity or compassion more suitable emotions than anger and indignation.
Finally, when one feels offended, it should cause a moment of self-reflection, because apparently one is not as confident about their beliefs as they tell themselves they are. Wouldn't one's response be otherwise to laugh? When someone tells me the earth is flat, I do not get offended, for I know it to be wrong. So why do I get offended now?
It would be practically impossible to ban anger, so that's not even worth bringing up as an attempt at producing a counterexample.
Also, there's a simple cost-benefit analysis that can be done with hate speech, although you will of course disregard it because you're a free speech fanatic. The loss of freedom of hate speech doesn't outweigh the risks of hate crime. Anyone with a working conscience will grant that the prevention of serious crimes like the Manchester bombing outweighs some self-important douchebag who thinks that he should be free to preach hate, discrimination, and acts of violence or terrorism.
That's another really good example. The typical person you'd stop on the street would readily accept that. This isn't a genuine debate here, because the other side would have to be intellectually dishonest to deny these compelling examples.
They begin with a diehard commitment to free speech fanaticism, and then they just sit back and deny any reasonable counterexamples and objections presented to them.
?? "Being spurned romantically" refers to someone turning you down when you're romantically interested in them.
You gotta read more dystopias. I think anger and emotions in general are being slowly banned. It'll take a while though, psychotropics are only so effective. But look how far they've come in diagnosing pretty much any so called negative emotion as part of a syndrome or other pathology.
I'm sure they'll find something that would 'help' to put in the water.
Do you do this on purpose? Just curious.
Okay, just swap "being angry" with "being spurned romantically". It's not like that makes it any less impractical, impossible, and ridiculous.
Why wouldn't it simply take a claim that you asked someone to hook up with you and they turned you down? All we need for rape is a claim that it happened.
They will be dealt with, but will they be dealt with sufficiently or will it be too late to reprimand these instigators?
This is yet another slippery slope, where you allow the rotten tree to fall and smash your house, settling to deal with the aftermath. Perhaps it would be more prodigal to prevent injury, rather than to mend it?
Quoting Tzeentch
Perhaps, there is a necessary risk involved with freedom.
I doubt that dictates that inflammatory actions ought be acquitted.
That one has the freedom to kill, does not dictate that one should freely kill - does it?
The innability to coexist, will inevitably end in repercussions for all parties involved.
Dealing with it like adults, children, men or beasts is equally faulty - as it has nothing to do with either.
And the job of the justice system is to enforce coexistence, through means of fear and repercussions - that unfortunately add to the tension, rather than to relieve it - as the general realisation of 'why' is left out. It's a dam that is prone to break, as it does often enough. How long until the whole thing falls apart, I wonder?
You were quite right that people ought to be educated, but I retain the question, what in?
Merely enhancing their intellect, will enhance their observation - fueling the violent to violence and the kind to kindness; it lone, is not enough.
Quoting Tzeentch
It is no longer about Freedom of Speech, but Freely Speaking.
It is anarchical, and anarchy is self-cannibalising.
Freedom gets tossed out for the contention of freedom; and so your ideal is snared.
Quoting Tzeentch
One's wisdom is irrelevant, to the degree of violence or kindness.
Knowing of violence may enhance one's actions, though not control them.
So it is not intellect that propels one to violent action, and likewise it will not be intellect that will subdue it. Something else is required to play; a binder.
Quoting Tzeentch
They are the same. Pain felt here or there, is all generated in the mind.
Obliviousness to injury, voluntary or involuntary, will not produce pain.
Expectation of injury, voluntary or involuntary, will produce pain.
It is an act of awareness that may be maintaned, similar to the volume level of your phone's ringtone.
Pain does not bypass the intellect, though how it interacts with it is undecided.
Quoting Tzeentch
How would one make sub-optimal use of one's freedom if one is truly free?
Do you see freedom as an allowance to be exchanged?
Perhaps some words are perceived as powerful, for they truly are powerful?
Perhaps they work similar to a poison, that attacks something other than the flesh - so it is harder for the injuries to be detected and thus taken consideration of, for they are not so obvious?
Maybe it is the frail ego that they lacerate, but would that not entail that it is the frail ego that lacerates its opposing ego?
I do agree, that one ought be grateful for the truth, though it may be painful.
But would it not be more beneficial to express the truth in a less brutish manner, that does not involve nailing down the message?
Is it not more so what you do with it, rather than what it is? In which case the offender would be just as guilty as the offended; indeed, both fail.
Quoting Tzeentch
Perhaps one gets offended at the false, as the wilfully false confuses the one?
If the one craves truth, and the falsely speaking comes to stomp around, the one may feel offended in the same way as if someone came to stomp down your garden; for the wilfully false trades in misfortune.
Pity if directed by the one, will be at most to the one.
Would compassion or pity be more suitable emotions? Perhaps.
Yet they are not void of indignation - for they mingle with indignation, with the intent of washing it away.
Is one offended merely because one is not confident enough? I don't know.
But I doubt the appropriate response would be to otherwise laugh; that feels equally as unconfident.
Why are you continuing to pursue this when we both know that it's a stupid idea, not at all comparable to hate speech?
Quoting Terrapin Station
What?
Just following shamshir's reasoning.
So your language is a cause of the understanding in others. The consequences of your speech is others understanding something you've said.
Yes, classic slippery slope. I'm thinking of starting a petition to get the law against murdering children repealed, fancy signing up?
You know... First they ban murdering children, then they'll ban smacking children and before you know it they'll ban taking them to the park to feed the ducks...we must act now before it's too late!
Exactly. A perfectly normal activity for anyone living in the real world to have to contend with. Compromise, weighing harms, pragmatism...
Doesn't anyone remember how the last countries run by uncompromising ideology turned out? I'll jog your memories... 10 million dead.
Not true. You understanding what I’ve said is a consequence of your own language.
Okay. You asked:
Quoting Terrapin Station
And the answer is that you could apply the same reasoning, but in the case of hate speech there's a sensible basis for banning it, or for maintaining the ban where it's already in place, whereas your counter proposal is stupid. Hate speech is already prohibited under UK law, and if you scrapped those laws, then you'd bear responsibility for the consequences. But you can't scrap laws on prohibiting being romantically spurned because no such laws exist because that would be stupid.
Those uncompromising ideologies routinely and visciously censored views they despised. How did that turn out?
The moral of the story would be to reject both extreme censorship and free speech fanaticism, and to support instead a reasonable balance between the two extremes.
Oh that dangerous free speech fanaticism, sure to lead to genocide and death. Of course, free speech fanaticism has never lead to any such extreme, only to the defense of human rights.
This is a joke surely? How is that I understand what you say and not some other unrelated thing?
If you say "imagine a blue elephant" how is that I imagine a blue elephant? Coincidence? Come on!
Of course they did. Any half-wit dictator could work out the necessity of doing that. The point is that in absolutely no historical case did the process start with a tiny imposition on the right to free speech. At all times they started with an uncompromising faith in some ideology.
Not a joke. Would you imagine an elephant if you didn’t understand the language I spoke? The words are there, the sound waves are there, the meaning is there, yet you don’t imagine an elephant. Why is that?
My understanding the language wasn't the part I was confused about. I'm quite happy that me understanding English is a necessary cause of me imagining a blue elephant in response to your suggestion. What I'm struggling to understand is your laughable claim that your words are not.
The suppression of civil rights was one of the first thing Hitler did with the Reichstag Fire Decree. The rest is history.
Yes. I'm pretty sure that the suppression of opposition speech was the first thing Hitler did after some other thing he did. That's basically how things progress. One thing after another. My claim was that Hitler's rise to power did not start with suppressing hate speech. Which is what you are implying could happen. It has never happened.
How can only some words be the necessary cause of you imagining an elephant but the same words in a different language are not? You hear the words, you interpret the meaning, you think of an elephant, all of which are actions performed by you, not me.
What did it start with? The Big Bang?
Who said anything about the necessary cause? A necessary cause. A necessary cause. A necessary cause. Do you understand the difference between necessary and sufficient?
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, and the first one in the chain is you speak the words. Why is the chain starting with me hearing the words. In order for me to hear the words it is necessary that you speak them.
It started with a program of violence and propoganda from 1928, five years before the riechstag fire decree.
Just one of many necessary causes I suppose? Sorry, I misunderstood. But that is the fault of your words, not me, right?
Because that’s where any reaction to any outer stimulus begins. Meaning doesn’t fly through the air on sound waves. It’s you who hears them, understands them, interprets them, judges them, and so on.
. . . What does that have to do with Shamshir's post?
No. Not any reaction. That's the point. I don't just have any reaction to you saying "imagine a blue elephant". I might stubbornly refuse to imagine a blue elephant. I might get confused and imagine a pink elephant... But I am vastly more likely to think of a blue elephant than I would have been had you not spoken the words. Your words have had an effect on me. They have made it vastly more likely that I will think of a blue elephant than it was before you spoke.
If you don't believe me, walk into a pub, say "imagine a blue elephant" and bet £100 that the number of people who then think of a blue elephant will be exactly the same as the pub next door where no one spoke those words.
I don’t see it. I wouldn’t imagine a blue elephant just because you told me to. I would have to choose to do so.
What would this have to do with the notion of causing people to be violent because you're saying "nigga" or teaching a dog to raise its paw when it hears "Sieg Heil" (which are two cases that were looked at under the UK hate speech laws)?
Where did I say you would? I never said would. I said you were vastly more likely to than you would have have been without my saying it.
If you took two crowds and to one said "think of a blue elephant and to the other you said nothing, are you seriously telling me you think the proportion of people thinking of blue elephants would be exactly the same?
Because both those expressions make it more likely that people will think violent actions against those groups or in favour of those causes are acceptable than would be the case had they not been said/done.
People moderate their behaviour according to social norms, if they perceive that those social norms include treating one group of people as less human or deserving of punishment /derision then they will be less likely to restrict their own negative behaviour toward those groups, including physical action.
But I don't know why I'm explaining this to you because you've already made it clear that your random desire for people to be able to say hateful things is so important (for no reason) that only unequivocal abundant evidence of any risk will sway you from it.
As I've already said. Social sciences only deal with suggestions, probabilities, possibilities... The stuff grown-ups have to deal with.
No, I’m saying me thinking about a blue elephant is the cause of my own volition. It’s an act of will, not sorcery. You didn’t put the blue elephant there.
Any word you come across, whether it comes from my mouth or it was written thousands of years ago, is just stimulus. They are sounds or scratches on paper, lacking any meaning or encoded information, until someone comes along and provides meaning and information.
For the hundredth time, no one is claiming this. Why do you keep arguing against it. The claim is that someone having previously said "think of a blue elephant" makes it vastly more likely that you will voluntarily, of your own free will (if you like), think of a blue elephant, than if no one had said anything previously. Do you even understand that proposition?
C'mon. That couldn't be more ridiculous. I thought you were at least talking about explicit exhortations to commit violence. You can't possibly believe that teaching a dog to raise its paw in response to "Sieg Heil" is at all correlated with violence.
You mean like repeating the phrase "gas the Jews" over and over again, as actually happened in that case. You mean the absolutely massive £800 infringement on his liberty?
Yes, you've totally convinced me, I'd much rather live in a world where one can find nazi-themed exhortations to "gas the Jews" online, than one in which innocent people might have a whole £800 removed from them by the draconian state. Whatever next. People calling for public beheadings might be handed something as brutal as community service orders. Oh my God, its like living under Stalin...where does it end?
So you don't believe that teaching a dog to raise its paw in response to "Sieg Heil" is at all correlated with violence.
That's a bit of a relief, I suppose.
Only in that if I met him, I might punch him!
It’s nonsensical. But I’ll state that you will gladly think of a blue elephant if someone told you to.
If you're focused on what they're saying, you're in a compliant mood, etc., sure. It doesn't force you to think of a blue elephant of course.
Tell you what. Let's use Twitter. Have a look at the BBC twitter feed and we'll note what they're talking about. Then we'll wait for some politician to make a speech. My bet will be that the twitter feed is more likely to be about the content of that speech than it was before he spoke. Your bet is that his speech will make no difference at all to what the BBC journalists choose to talk about.
A thousand quid, just send me your details and I'll set it up.
So his speech forces them to talk about what they do?
Maybe it’s me. I’d pretend to imagine a blue elephant before I actually did, just to humor the guy.
No one throughout this entire discussion has used the word 'forced' nor any term like it to describe the effect speech acts have on others, so why would you be asking such an odd question? No. His speech does not force them to talk about what they do. It makes them vastly more likely to do so than they would have been had he not spoke.
I never said people won’t talk about another’s words. “Come on”.
I didn't say you did. Your claim was that speech had no consequences on others. If speech has no consequences on others then it cannot affect the liklihood of any subject matter they might choose to talk about. Affecting the liklihood is a consequence. So if you stand by your claim that speech has no consequences on others then you should have no hesitation taking the bet. A thousand quid, easy money.
It doesn’t have any consequence on others but that does not entail we do not talk about things in the world, for instance words and speech.
Again. My claim is not that people are simply now able to talk about the new thing in the world (the speech act). It is that they are vastly more likely to. The speech act has affected the liklihood of the topic being one that the journalist wants to talk about. It has affected the journalist's desires. But, if you think it had no effect, then take the bet. Remember your claim was "no consequences" of speech acts.
My claim is that there was no consequence of speech. I never said “speech acts”, which I think are dubious.
It affected the journalist’s desires? No, it didn’t.
Okay, but (a) that's what I'm referring to by "cause"--if we're not talking about force, we're not talking about causes in my view, and (b) that's the only thing that I think is morally/legally problematic. If you're not forcing someone to do something, it's their choice to do whatever it is. I wouldn't make ANY influence, manipulation, etc. illegal, period.
It should have been more than clear that that's the only sense of "cause" that I use, by the way.
What's the difference?
The phrase “speech act” assumes two actions in one act of speaking. 1) the utterance and 2) the changing of reality. I dispute 2.
Well then you've confused necessary and sufficient causes. Injection of fuel does not 'force' an engine to turn, it requires other factors, yet no factor alone 'forces' the engine to turn. So is your argument that the engine turning has no cause?
Quoting Terrapin Station
Yes, I'm well aware of that too. As I've said, grown-ups have to think about weighing harms and making compromises. Sticking dogmatically to arbitrary ideologies regardless of the harm they may cause just sounds sociopathic.
Right, so if you dispute 2 then take the bet. The politician's speech is unable to change reality, so whatever probability existed in reality that the BBC twitter feed would be on the subject of the speech before the politicians spoke, that will be the same probability after he speaks. If his speaking is unable to change reality then the probability will remain unchanged. So you've got nothing to lose taking the bet have you?
Allow me to clarify. To be more precise, yes, it will change reality insofar as more words are added to it—the politicians speech was not there before but now it is and we can access it—but it won’t change anything beyond the medium.
It’s the “perlocutionary act” I dispute.
OK, so take the bet. If all that has changed is the mere existence of words, then the actions of the BBC journalist's will be unaffected, words have no consequences. You should be perfectly safe betting on the fact that the actions of the BBC journalists will remain exactly as they would have been prior to the speech.
That’s a poor bet. It’s a journalist’s job to report on a politician’s speech. That still doesn’t mean their actions are affected or otherwise influenced by the speech.
Try a different group who are not employed to report on a politicians speech, and I’ll take the bet.
OK two groups of football gamblers. One have seen the pre-match commentary in which the manager talks about what a bad feeling he has about the game, how his players have not been on good form, how his star striker is injured... The other group have not heard this commentary.
I bet a thousand pounds that the group which have heard the commentary place fewer and smaller bets on the team winning than the group who have not heard the commentary.
You up for it?
I won’t take that bet because I can’t bet against man’s credulity. The group will certainly place fewer and smaller bets based on what they heard in a commentary.
So speech (the commentary) will have had consequences, in reality, on the actual behaviour (bet placing) of other people.
Finally.
No, the act of believing something to be true and using that belief to justify betting a certain way is not a consequence of the speech, but of the understanding, language, knowledge and credulity of the listener.
Oh for fucks sake!
Haha, lmao. :lol:
But credit goes to you for capturing the spirit of every philosophical debate. :rofl:
Full marks for effort. I would in future assess earlier the probability that you will be met with rational responses and stay or bail accordingly.
I'm not confusing anything. I'm telling you how I'm using the word "cause."
Nowhere did I say anything at all resembling "a cause has to be a single thing."
But a cause has to involve force. If causes are multiple things, then it's multiple things forcing something to happen. That can happen two ways, plus a combo way: (1) as a temporal causal chain: A forces B which forces C which forces D. (2) Multiple things, A, B and C,simultaneously force D, or (3) there's a combo of a temporal chain (1) with multiple causes (2) at at least some steps of the chain.
No matter what we're talking about, causality still involves FORCE. A necessary cause of D means that D can't happen unless some particular antecedent, B, for example happens. B is a necessary cause of D in that case. That has to involve force of course. A sufficient cause of D means that B alone, for example, can make D happen, though other causes can be involved, too--those other causes need not be necessary, but if B is necessary, D can't happen if B doesn't happen, otherwise B isn't a necessary cause. Sufficient causes can never exclude necessary causes (as otherwise the cause in question wouldn't be necessary; it would be possible for D to obtain with it).
Sufficient causes that aren't necessary can be the case if, say, either A or B can cause D just as well. Then A or B would be sufficient, but not necessary, for D. (So that if A causes D, B wasn't necessary, and if B caused D, A wasn't necessary.)
Regardless, all causes have to involve FORCE, or we're not talking about causes, per how I'm using the term. Also, A isn't a cause of D unless A was part of at least some chain of events that resulted in D forcibly happening, where each step of the chain with A in the antecedent grouping involved forcible occurrences.
Quoting Isaac
When A doesn't force B, where B is what we have a problem with, where B is the harm we're concerned with, then A didn't cause B. That's just the point. In that case it's ontologically incorrect to say that A caused B. So it's flawed to talk about A causing some harm, B, in that case.
Yes, you're probably right. Apologies for the pointlessly long-winded elenchus. Feel free to delete the lot.
No fault on your part excepting over-optimism. And I think I'll leave it all as an instructive warning.
Right. So why do you keep presenting the fact that speech does not exhaustively and consistently cause certain behaviours as if it were an argument. If we accept speech as a cause among others then we would expect the behaviour it causes to be neither exhaustive nor consistent because the actual outcome will be heavily determined by the other factors involved. None of this makes speech no longer a cause, simply because the effect requires other forces as well to become manifest.
As to it being a physical force, everything that happens in the brain is physical. Unless we're returning to your magic woo again.
Speech doesn't force the behavior in question. You just agreed to that. No one is arguing about whether speech alone forces the behavior in question. It's not part of any set of phenomena that FORCE the actions in question.
When we're talking about electrons interacting, even, I don't buy that determinism is always involved in the phenomena. We can have a vacuum, with two particles, A and B, where B can be in more than one subsequent state after interacting with A. I already explained this. You must just buy classical Laplacean determinism on faith, despite the fact that it hasn't been standard in the sciences for about 150 years.
In addition, I mentioned multiple times that I'm not a realist on physical laws. I'm a nominalist. I don't buy that there are ANY real abstracts, including physical laws per se.
Buy the way, if you're a Laplacean determinist, why wouldn't you be claiming that the subsequent actions are physically forced?
Quoting Terrapin Station
Quoting Terrapin Station
Glad you finally got around to admitting you were wrong. (Cue more sophistry and time wasting).
I already explained that it wasn't at all ontologically necessary for you to write your posts for me to write mine. Didn't you read the explanation?
You don't seem to realize that you'd be claiming that it's ontologically impossible for me to have written my posts the way I did without you writing yours. (Not to mention that you'd be claiming that your posts forced me to write mine as I did (at least as one part of a causal chain, which I shouldn't have to clarify).)
Throwing the word "ontologically" in does no work in this context. Your "explanation" a) contradicts the above and b) commits you to saying that decisions based on X don't require X. Anyway, carry on as if anyone is falling for any of this.
What's P in this case (where I'm stating P & ~P)?
I'm not of any delusions that anyone is really understanding what I'm typing, unfortunately, but this is the best I can get--a bunch of really conceited people who work as computer techs, etc. and who don't really understand philosophy very well.
Yes, you're the only one here who understands philosophy. And who isn't conceited.
Maybe try learning something for once?
At any rate, so what's P for the supposed contradiction?
That’s the mindset at work here, isn’t it? Their actions are determined by prior states of the world and not self-generated.
Yes, apparently Isaac is a determinist, though for some reason he doesn't seem to want to be very straightforward about that.
Ok, Yoda, teach me about what causes decisions to be made. Lay out the process and provide empirical evidence for it.
Decisions are not forced. They wouldn't be decisions if they were.
Lay out the process of decision making and provide empirical evidence for it.
Okay, first, do you understand that decisions are not forced?
I'm not going to do word play with you. If you really have something to 'teach', lay out the process of decision making and provide empirical evidence for it.
If I'm teaching you, you don't get to make demands. You follow the teacher.
So first, do you understand that decisions are not forced?
You want to try to force me to agree with you even before the lesson begins? :confused:
Either you understand it or you do not. You just answer honestly, and then we go from there.
The details of the process aren’t necessary for this discussion so long as we know where the process begins and ends: in an individual’s biology. Could we agree on that?
Rather, you have no interest in learning anything. You're only interested in arguing and being right.
I just explained that I was asking you a question. You just answer it honestly.
But you're not being honest here either. That's a regular issue with you; a lack of honesty.
What is the process by which you think decision-making is reached? Give empirical evidence to back up your position.
So first, do you understand that decisions are not forced?
I've work to do now actually. Just wanted to demonstrate that with Terrapin, there's very often no 'there' there.
Psychological force is the same thing as physical force. Mentality is physical.
At any rate, aside from the fact that I was asking you about decisions, you could just explain whatever you believe you need to explain in your answer.
Then what causes the actions in question? Without invoking your religious supernaturalism, what is it that causes the action? Something with evidence good and solid enough to legislate on. Something so certain that it surmount the harms that would come about if you are wrong.
And no, some new age horseshit about quantum uncertainty affecting macro scale events won't wash. Quote a single physicist who teaches that quantum uncertainty makes macro scale systems non-determinate on this context.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I am claiming that. One of the forces which, collectively with other forces, physically determine the decisions we (appear to) make is the speech of others.
I don't claim this out of Laplacean determinism, but out of pragmatism. We're talking about laws here that affect people's lives, and states do not have the benefit of possessing virtues, ideals or feelings so must be coldly utilitarian.
It would lead to all kinds of wrong, including permissible discrimination, a rise in hate crime, permissible fraud, and things like this:
[quote=Wikipedia]People have indeed falsely shouted "Fire!" in crowded public venues and caused panics on numerous occasions, such as at the Royal Surrey Gardens Music Hall of London in 1856, a theater in New York's Harlem neighborhood in 1884,[8] and in the Italian Hall disaster of 1913, which left 73 dead. In the Shiloh Baptist Church disaster of 1902, over 100 people died when "fight" was misheard as "fire" in a crowded church causing a panic and stampede.[/quote]
Your ignorance in this regard, whether wilful or otherwise, is no excuse.
You asked a question, I answered it. And the first part of my sentence you quoted is clearly about his reasoning, so why ask what that has to do with his post? How could you miss that? Are you feeling okay?
Haha. Sure, you have 100% full control of your mind. What a joke.
Rereading some of this I came across this quote right here. I thought you kept saying that the mind is physical no? That consciousness is just a brain state and is (somehow) no different from the chemical interactions in he brain that cause it. So me claiming that causally pegging the sounds of hate speech to violent action is possible is not me claiming that the mind isn’t involved. It would actually be me claiming that the mind IS involved fully according to you, at least as far as I’m understanding it
Also your definition of free will is basically equivalent to saying that mental processes don’t have predetermined results. As in this neuron might fire this way OR that way, and that that or is ontological not epistemological. So, if one could prove that hate speech makes violence more likely then why wouldn’t it count as a cause? So it would be like:
hate speech + it’s hot outside + I’m late for work + free will => violence
Where each factor contributed to “biasing the probability” (as you said in the free will thread). Are you claiming that hate speech plays no role in biasing towards violence?
How much of this discussion has just been you completely getting the wrong end of the stick?
So, while you are reading my words here in this sentence you are choosing to have the meanings of these words arise in your mind. And if I mentioned brain or horse, unless you chose have the meaning of those words arise in your mind, those meanings would not appear there.
If it is not me, then what is controlling my mind?
I don’t think I need the meaning to “arise in my mind”. I already know the meaning. The meaning is already there. They are not put there or otherwise coaxed into my mind by your words.
And what are the criteria you use to decide whether to let a novel phrase or novel image arise in your mind when you decide to make the image or not? Like someone says 'inverted ice cream truck' and you spend a moment deciding whether to picture that or not? That seems extremely inefficient, if possible.
If I could decide somehow to make all such instances a moment of choice, where I weigh making the image or not in my mind, I would not. It would make reading, listening, communicating slower and for no good reason. Someone repeatedly keeps saying things like 'bamboo shoot trhough the iris', ok, I might tune them out, focus elsewhere, but in general I let my unconscious mind generate images and meanings and don't waste time deciding to understand or see.
It doesn't follow from the fact that you don't have full control over your mind that someone or something else is controlling your mind.
It is known scientifically, as well as simply being a matter of common sense, that our thoughts and behaviour can be involuntarily influenced.
Maybe it’s me; I don’t see images unless I’m dreaming. My thinking process resembles an inner language as opposed to an inner picture book.
I just asked a question. It’s fine if you don’t want to answer it but blaming me is hilarious.
Now, sincerely, can I get an example of thoughts and behavior being involuntarily influenced?
You've been given plenty of examples already.
Roses are ____ .
There you go. That's an example. If you deny that the word of a particular colour didn't come to mind just now, then you're lying. And that it did so is obviously not a coincidence.
It's common parlance to say, "That made me think of such-and-such".
I asked for an example of my thoughts and behavior being involuntarily influenced, something you said was common sense. It was a simple request. Instead you provide question begging, where your assertions are already assumed to be true.
You think that me saying “red” to finish that sentence is an example of your influence, and not a matter of there being no other option. To prove your influence, see if you can influence me to say “blue” in that same sentence instead of red.
You gave me an example of your question begging. End of.
Here
You thought of the word "red". That was involuntary. And it was influenced by those words I typed up and submitted.
Why don't you just be honest and admit it, instead of denying it and trying to come up with a good comeback?
Fine. I thought about that issue also. But still, to read something and to choose to construct the meanings of the words as they arrive would be, jeez, like threading needles or something. A kid learning to read must do it that way, just as a new driver has to think right foot here, shift there, check mirror, but after a while they can plan what to say to their boss and the body just handles the movements. If I am reading a science fiction book or an article on something new in physics (for lay people) or someone is telling me a ghost story, even if it involves new ideas, I don't choose to construct the meanings. This happens automatically, except in those fairly rare occasions that I must struggle to make sense of something, not just becaue it is new, but because it is odd or hard to imagine. But even novel ideas most of the time they just arise in my mind. I don't have to choose. And I certainly don't say no. I want to not have meaning arise in my mind, I have to close the book or look away.
If someone is telling me a story and I don't want to listen, I would have to work very, very hard to block out the story and all the meanings. I'd probably have to chant internally or count backwards fast from 100, just create a huge amount of noise to signal to stop my mind from generating meaning automatically.
And if you throw a ball at my head, I duck. In fact learning certain things like dance or how to stay in character I have to fight very hard to get out of habitual movements and reactions.
Here, Here, Here are the most famous ones.
Here, Here, Here is some of the more up to date research that available without paywalls.
Where's your evidence?
I don’t think the meaning is constructed or generated on the fly, automatically or otherwise. To me, it’s more that the meaning is already there as a feature of the language. It doesn’t need to be constructed because I am already in possession of it.
Pick one and we can talk about it.
Read them already? Try...
Here, Here
Translation: pick one, and I can deny it and think up some basis to explain it away.
In a few that you presented the authors no doubt use the language of “influence”, that someone else’s words and actions determine our responses. But at the same time they discuss the psychological aspect of it, that the process is one occurring within the test subject.
So long as thinking ( also hearing, understanding, interpreting, “telling that story” etc.) is an act performed by me, I see no reason to dispute that. Without the rules of grammar or lexicon or even a shared language, however, we would not think about apes if we heard the word “ape”.
Are my thoughts not regulated or controlled or determined by some organism? Secondly, Am I or am I not that organism? If I am not that which controls my thoughts, what is?
Should be simple enough to answer.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes
Quoting NOS4A2
No. You’re not. The conscious you is a part of the organism that controls your thoughts. Not all of it.
I’m not much of a dualist so I think the notion of a conscious me and an unconscious me is a distinction without a difference. I’m the organism, the organism controls it’s own thoughts, therefor I control my own thoughts.
No difference? Try stopping your heart. Dualism doesn’t have much to do with conscious/subconscious anyway.
Quoting NOS4A2
I wouldn’t say the organism controls it’s own thoughts either conscious and subconscious together when environmental factors clearly influence it. Example: my comment significantly increased the likelihood you think of your reply. It doesn’t cause it, it helps cause it along with other factors
I am not saying that you are an empty vessel. Sure, of course, you know language. That's not the issue. It is not a skill or knowledge issue. It has to do with you not deciding to decode sounds. It happens automatically.
I see what you’re saying.
I suppose the issue I have is the so-called effect of the words, when clearly the effect—hearing, constructing meaning, decoding sounds—has only me as it’s cause. Once the sound or word enters my domain, so to speak, it is under the control of my processes whether automatic or not.
So, a camp counselor tells some extremely scary ghost stories to the kids and 4% have horrible nightmares, I think we might consider it reasonable for parents to ask the camp to have an policy against that kind of story telling. Each child's mind/brain does, yes, become causal in what it does with the stories that arise in their minds when the storyteller tells the story. But, then coming at it from another angle, parents might not want their suseptible kids to have bad experiences and other parents are upset that their kids are being woken up by the screaming of the suseptible kids.
Now this is kids, so maybe that seems unfair in the context of hate speech which is usually about speech acts between adults, though not always. But at root we are dealing with X contributing to more cases of Y. If we don't like Y, well it's a reasonable option to consider stopping or limiting X.
Of course this depends on other effects of limiting X and how well we can show that X leads to more cases of Y.
But at the root level of causes it can make sense to make certain policy decisions, despite the truth of what you are saying: that your brain and mind work with the stimulus and create meaning (or images or emotion, etc.)
To be honest I haven’t really fleshed out the idea yet, so I appreciate the valid responses. I sincerely want to figure this out and enjoy trying to do so.
Children are sponges when it comes to the environment. If they are in an environment with more X there will be a higher likelihood of Y. I agree.
It’s difficult to argue against censorship when it comes to children because I think a parent is a legit authority fully capable of deciding what a child can or cannot say or hear, for the reasons you stated. Given that a child is in the midst of his development, it seems prudent to protect him from certain aspects of the environment, including speech. I don’t think that sort of authority and authoritarianism can extend to adults, however, and freedom rather than censorship should be the rule.
Both censorship and freedom of speech can lead to the distortion of truth, but only one offers an honorable and dignified environment for bringing it back out again.
I think of the entire history of human expression and feel a sense of loss because of what was stolen or destroyed because someone didn’t like it. We might all be Epicureans right now if his work wasn’t largely missing. Where would science be if someone didn’t discover De Rerum Natura collecting dust in some monastery? Hell, Even Nazi propaganda is in a museum.
My main assertion is that the concrete artifacts of human expression—words, paintings, books, and the like—are completely blameless. I believe that education and critical thinking is a far better antidote to hatred than censorship. We can’t rid the world of bigotry and intolerance by evoking it.
In other words, I was seeing whether you were asserting determinism, or at least asserting that mind doesn't phenomenally involve free will.
Quoting khaled
Correct.
Quoting khaled
First, that wouldn't be possible, because empirical claims are not provable period.
Secondly, aside from proof, "X makes y more likely" isn't a statement of causality
Quoting khaled
On my view only causality matters.
I wasn't following this latest tangent (I'm going to be pretty busy for awhile), but on my view, you have to intentionally construct meaning, but that doesn't imply that on all subsequent occasions it's something you need to make a conscious effort to do.
It's similar to something like learning how to drive. At first, you need to consciously think about everything you're doing, and you need to figure out how to do it. After you've done it a bit, though, you no longer need to think about it to do it. That doesn't imply that it's not something you're doing.
I think this is relevent to the debate because, for example, there have been all sorts of experiments done using priming. Exposing people to all sorts of stimuli: colors, temperature changes, words, stories
before they do a task or have an interaction with other people changes how that group will perform against control groups. And in predictable ways. IOW there is a statistical influence at a non-conscious level on how we treat other people (and how well we do on tests, for example). A bit like the experiment where they primed teachers, though it's more than priming, selecting two similar groups of students and telling the teachers one was a group of weak students, the others good students and the latter not only were evaluated as better by the teachers but performed better. Though, again, statistically.
When the elephant thing first came up, I pointed out that it's still something the receiver has to basically choose (I'm saying "basically" because it's not necessarily something you're thinking about as a choice, but it's a matter of willfully orienting yourself towards it in particular ways). You have to focus on the utterance, you have to think about it a particular semantic way, and if we're talking about picturing things, you need to willfully direct yourself for that, too.
An example of this that a lot of people are familiar with is this: when I listen to music--and I know many other people who do this, too (although maybe most of them are musicians)--I only rarely parse lyrics (so parse vocals) semantically. Most of the time I hear lyrics/vocals so that they might as well be an instrument like a trumpet or a saxophone. I listen to melody, phrasing, timbre, etc. In order to parse lyrics/vocals semantically when I listen to music, I have to make an effort to focus on that aspect.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Shooting someone causes them to die is an empirical claim but we can't prove that so I guess shooting people is fine herpa derp.
Quoting Terrapin Station
No but X, A,B,C and D simultaneously cause Y is a statement of causality no? I'm saying X can be hate speech and Y violence
Quoting Terrapin Station
But you said before that multiple things can cause an event at the same time right? So if the event in question has multiple causes as such should individual causes be legally punishable?
If A B and C cause bad thing D then should someone who did A be punished if D happens?
Something should only be punishable if it has one cause only? A => D?
Quoting khaled
Since empirical claims are not provable, it's not something to bother with. I'm not saying anything at all about proof in any of these comments. Proof has nothing at all to do with knowing empirical claims. Is that understandable?
What was the point of this quote then?
Quoting Terrapin Station
You wrote "So, if one could prove that hate speech makes violence more likely"
I was commenting on that.
No, because no empirical claim is provable period. Proof has nothing to do with empirical knowledge. It's a category error.
We'd need to establish it via empirical evidence, etc.--the way we need to do with any empirical claim, which has nothing to do with proof.
I assume your objection will be "but it's not a cause and only causes matter" correct?
Again, I don't want to keep going over the same stuff again and again. Above I wrote "'X makes y more likely' isn't a statement of causality" and "On my view only causality matters."
So why do I have to write both again a couple hours later?
You didn't. You could've just said "yes that would be my objection" because that's exactly what I asked would be your objection
Now. Does this mean the ONLY way for something to be punishable for you is if it has a single cause and is not "co caused" by multiple things?
So if D is bad and
A=>D. Then A is punishable
B, C and E=> D. Now what? Are none of them punishable?
No. I addressed this already above.
I don't you remember you doing so. So would B C and E all be punishable or what?
It's ridiculous to think I was ever suggesting anything special about "things with single causes."
Ehhhhh I've heard crazier stuff.
Now. Say X is hate speech, Y is violence and C is the indeterminate brain functions that add up to free will
If X, A, B and C cause Y
Why shouldn't we ban X?
Are you saying X has absolutely no effect for causing Y? Aka it would never be there along A, B and C?
And it wasn't your post, I don't think, I was responding to in relation to the elephant. Perhaps I would have responded the same way. I just don't by this act of choosing to contruct meaning when exposed to people saying stuff. Certainly in some moods and when focused on something else, etc., sure. One might have to choose to shift focus. But in general I don't think it's a good model for what happens. If one wants to stay with that model, I can see what it might entail.
I would also then want to investigate the idea that everyone has free will. It seems to me there are degrees of free will, if there is free will.
Free will can't be part of the equation if we're trying to claim that something prior to it caused something. That's contradictory. Free will isn't deterministic.
Not necessarily, and it's "not whether I believe it or not." You'd be saying not only that I have unconscious mental content but that you can know what that content is better than I do.
It could be the case that without the input X, your free will would have indeterminstically gone another way right? A way that is not violent. I understand that in that case the causal chain isn't really a causal chain because there is an indeterminate process in the middle is that your objection?
It's really this simple. As Khaled has already laid out. ABC and D collectively cause E. Take any one away and E will not happen. Regardless of what you want to call ABC and D.
A is hate speech, BC and D are the additional thing your brain has to do to that speech to cause you to act violently.
What is your evidence, beyond wishful thinking, that A cannot possibly be hate speech.
If it's indeterminate it's not causal.
Why am I having to repeat something I just wrote? Something prior to free will isn't causal to a free will decision.
I said beyond wishful thinking. You've forwarded no evidence whatsoever for free will, so you can't now assume it's existence, and a full working knowledge of its function, as a matter of public policy
So I assume rigging a gun to shoot randomly by some indeterminate mechanism (say, random nuclear decay) and putting that in a public street is fine?
You're a determinist. I'm not. Obviously I don't believe that free will is "wishful thinking" I think that determinism is thinking that hasn't moved past about 1840.
It's not causal, is it?
I want you to admit that it's not causal first. Is it causal?
.
I want you to admit that it's not causal first. Is it causal?
No. It is not causal. I said so three times are you blind?
Okay, thanks.
So, with free will, it's not something random, is it? I've explained this to you in some detail already in another thread.
Uhhhh. What? You mean it's not something deterministic? I thought your whole shtick was that free will is basically just an expression of the fact that chemical reactions aren't determinate in the quantum level
I explained this. What did you do when you read that explanation?
I read and apparently misunderstood it.
What do you mean "it's not something random"
Do you mean not equipotential? As in not the same probability?
This post was from 10 days ago. It's very simple and straightforward. What don't you understand here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/316725
But. You have different probabilities to do things before this biasing takes place no? And towards which of those this biasing takes place is not deterministic no?
I understand that the will is the thing that biases a decision to 100%. But which decision gets biased is random no? Of course it takes into account all your dispositions and past experiences and whatnot
The probabilities with respect to the options are a factor of your contemplation. It's not deterministic in that you're not forced to make a particular choice.
Yes. I agree. Where is the confusion here?
You asked:
Quoting Terrapin Station
Except it IS something random no?
Even you said in that thread that if something is not deterministic then it is random. So if free will is not deterministic then it is random no?
So why when I asked...
Quoting Isaac
...did you reply
Quoting Terrapin Station
Now you're saying that the only reason your argument works is because you believe in magical force which can neither detect nor forward any supported theory as to how it functions.
Woo.
No, it's not random. For the third time now, at the point you make the decision the biasing is 100% (or 1 in probability terms) towards what you decide. The biasing is done by you, not by something prior to you. The biasing is not random--you don't have random contemplation about your possibilities. But it's not determined, either. You're not forced to take just one route, you have real options, due to the fact that the world isn't as strong determinism depicts it.