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.

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.

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? — Isaac

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.

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"? — Isaac

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.

The same way having proper blood flow is beneficial rather than detrimental.

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?

Found it rather relevant.

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. — Isaac

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.

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? — Isaac

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.

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. — Pattern-chaser

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.

Both, older generations structure language, which then shapes newer generations, who, as they get older, structure language again and so on.

Suicide is simply rejecting your reality to the point of removing yourself from it while enduring pushback from all the physical and mental safeguards that exist to prevent you from doing so.

I reject antinatalism. If you don't wish to have kids, it's your prerogative, but to pretend others should do the same holds parallels with religious indoctrination in the sense that it pushes to make a personal choice for someone else. For many folks it is in some ways a sanitized way to say "pro eugenics"

Turns out it was a spam filter false positive. And I'm a goofus.
Confound dem sneaky newfangled thingamabobs.

Oh.... well, I feel silly now.
Sorry for the fuming, and thank you for the clarification.

Going to ease myself out of the discussion, because having my posts randomly deleted with no feedback is exhausting and counter to the spirit of philosophy.

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. — Isaac

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.

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? — Isaac

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.

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? — Isaac

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.

When deleting posts, maybe some sort of private message quoting the post with feedback from moderation as part of the deletion process (so we know why they were deleted and can correct the original writing) would save time and improve discussions.

I've spent over an hour typing and retyping a post that was on topic, non inflammatory and as constructive and properly written as I could make it, only to have it deleted twice within seconds and without feedback. Meanwhile, expletive-laden flame wars remain standing.
I think I'll stick to lurking from now on.

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. — Isaac

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.

For those who insist on finding case studies of empirical evidence of hate speech causing undue and unwarranted violence, I offer the example of Nazi Germany. The Jews and the Christians reluctantly had mulled about doing their own business, and more-or-less had strived within the situation of multi-religious nations. Then came a hate speaker, and as a direct result of his efforts, six million Jews were brutally executed, or horribly tortured or both. This is a direct result of having a single solitary person spewing out hate speech. If you need any more evidence than this that hate speech is effective, then first drive a dagger through my throat. — god must be atheist

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.

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? — Isaac

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 said enough. To those who advocate the return of unrestricted hate speech to society, i have only one message for you: go fuck yourselves. — god must be atheist

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.

I created a reply that was on topic, neutral and constructively written. It was removed within seconds.
How can I find out why this was the case?

-Post redacted as I simply retyped the whole thing below thinking it was deleted-

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. — Isaac

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? — Isaac

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.

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? — Isaac

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.

Disallowing or banning hate speech seems an awful lot like addressing a symptom instead of the illness itself. I'd even argue the idea that hate speech causes violence has parallels with the idea that videogames cause violence.

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.