This is what I mean. There are no such magnetic effects, forces, dimensions nor tendencies in the words. They do not carry anything. We can devise any number of instruments in order to detect such forces, and will never be able to measure it. Such descriptions of words are invariably figurative. — NOS4A2

I agree words do not carry a physical force - this is not in dispute. But you didn't respond to my comments about emotive language. Do you reject the view that there is such thing as emotive language?

Before you answer, consider a scenario in which you hear about a 5 year old girl getting raped. Of course, the plain facts of the event will enter your mental memory bank ("Sally G. age 5, raped on day x in town y...). But don't you think you would also have an emotional reaction to the news? This extreme example is just to establish that words CAN sometimes evoke emotions. It's not because sounds are being made and heard, but it's because there is information content, and the information (not the sounds) can trigger emotions.

Understand I'm trying to set aside arguing who's right, I'm just trying to understand your point of view.

This is now beginning to be the same as having a discussion with my seven year old. As you were...

I thought responding in the ban thread wouldn't be in line with its purpose and this thread seems active and relevent so I'll respond here.

Free speech isn’t sacred. It’s instrumental. — DasGegenmittel

Free Speech is sacred! Free Speech could only be seen as instrumental for someone who has never held views held in comtempt by the majority populous. Most modern ideas would be heretical in the past, yet their truthhood or lack thereof would remain. I reject that narcassistic notion that we live in an age where our morality has been perfected, that there could never be any moral injustice we vehemetely defend. In fact, the world seems yet full of such intolerance and your solution seems to be more of the same. Every intolerant ideology holds their rejection of others to be moral through some mechanism, you've simply claimed your intolerance is somehow tolerant.

There is absolutely nothing "self-defeating" about being open and inclusive of all ideas. Ideas are powerless, and they only gain power through people. People cannot change if they never converse with anyone outside of the ideas they are born into. Your rejection of conversation dooms them to those default ideas, giving them not even a chance to understand and change, which I find rather intolerant and distasteful. Conversation is how you bridge the gap, it allows people to understand your ideas and allows you to strengthen your own arguments.

The alternative you provide to those people you intend to strip their freedom to simply speak from, will simply hold that ressentment inside, with nothing but political violence being their outlet. Afterall, they cant even state their belief without your ideal world implementing force against them. Insert the expression of any belief you even slightly believe in and this torture should be clear.

Personally, I find your idea disgusting. However, I think you have the right to say it, and I wouldn't imagine placing that torture on you.

@Ourora Aureis

TLDR;
You speak the language of principle, but there’s nothing behind it — no framework, no ethical grounding, no awareness of consequence. You invoke free speech not to defend dialogue, but to excuse hostility. You don’t stand for freedom; you stand for the freedom to harm without accountability. That’s not conviction. It’s moral laziness disguised as righteousness.

- - -

It’s ironic — you speak of the sanctity of open discourse, yet your tone is anything but open. You call my position “narcissistic,” “disgusting,” and equate it with “torture.” That’s not argumentation. That’s condemnation disguised as debate. You accuse others of being intolerant while wielding your own form of rhetorical violence — not just disagreeing, but morally indicting, pathologizing, and emotionally shaming. If you believe that open conversation changes minds, why do you model the exact opposite? You speak not to understand, but to humiliate. Not to persuade, but to dominate.

You’ve misrepresented both the spirit and the substance of my argument — in some places quite aggressively. I've said the following in a discussion about a banned person (Gregory was misogynistic):

I think this touches on a crucial question: Is free speech a value in itself, or a means to an end?

In the U.S., there's often this almost sacred reverence for free speech as an absolute principle. But I’d argue that speech is only valuable insofar as it sustains the conditions for open, inclusive, and rational discourse. Once it begins to actively undermine those conditions – by dehumanizing people, inciting hatred, or flooding the space with bad-faith noise – its “freedom” becomes self-defeating.

For example: should a philosophy forum tolerate someone saying “I hope women no longer exist in 10,000 years”? Or “Blacks are genetically inferior”? Or “The Holocaust didn’t happen”? These aren’t edgy thoughts. They’re acts of exclusion. They don’t provoke thought – they shut thought down.

Take a practical case: imagine a female newcomer logs into this forum, excited to engage with deep philosophical topics, and then stumbles across a thread where someone writes “Women are a waste of time", “They make terrible friends and even worse girlfriends." or one of the other. That’s not just distasteful – it’s a message loud and clear: "You’re not really human here. You’re a problem to be explained, not a person to be heard."

Free speech isn’t sacred. It’s instrumental. And if it’s used to destroy the conditions that make real discourse possible, then drawing lines isn’t just justified – it’s necessary. — DasGegenmittel

To clarify: I am not advocating censorship because I find ideas personally offensive. I am questioning whether certain kinds of speech actively destroy the very conditions that make meaningful dialogue possible — especially for marginalized participants. If speech dehumanizes others or treats them as subhuman, it’s not part of the marketplace of ideas. It poisons it.

Calling free speech “sacred” elevates it beyond critique — but in a democratic society, no principle should be beyond examination, especially when its unchecked application can undermine the very freedoms it claims to protect. “Sacred” is a word for romantics or dogmatists — for those unwilling to examine why free speech matters. When I describe it as instrumental, I’m asking under what conditions it is necessary and sufficient for an open society, and when it ceases to be. That’s precisely what philosophy has always done: moving from mythos to logos — from unquestioned belief to reasoned analysis.

John Stuart Mill defended free speech because he believed that truth emerges through open debate. But that only works when participants engage each other as equals. When someone’s humanity is under attack, the exchange of ideas collapses into harm.

Karl Popper put it bluntly: unlimited tolerance can lead to the end of tolerance. If we tolerate speech that seeks to silence, exclude, or erase others, we’re not preserving freedom — we’re dismantling it. This is the paradox of tolerance. And this ties into a broader security paradox: you warn that restricting speech breeds resentment and unrest. But uncritically protecting harmful speech can create spaces so hostile that others are forced out of public discourse entirely. The result isn’t freedom — it’s domination. Take a clear case: when Gregory writes that “women are a disappointment” or “hopefully there won’t be any female humans in 10,000 years,” that isn’t bold dissent — it’s dehumanization. Such speech doesn’t expand discourse; it drives people out of it. Protecting that in the name of freedom doesn’t preserve open debate — it ensures that only the loudest and most hostile voices remain. Even John Stuart Mill, often cited as the patron saint of free speech, warned that speech loses its value when it targets individuals rather than ideas. For Mill, the purpose of free expression was to promote truth through rational exchange — but that requires all participants to be treated as moral equals. When speech strips people of that status, it undermines the very conditions Mill saw as essential for meaningful discourse.

You say “ideas are powerless” — but history tells us otherwise. Ideas shape societies, justify atrocities, mobilize violence. The belief that “ideas do no harm” ignores how language constructs power. Would you really argue that “The Holocaust didn’t happen” is just an idea, detached from its historical consequences?

You’re right that people need dialogue to change. But meaningful dialogue requires a baseline of mutual recognition — not spaces where someone’s humanity is a topic for debate. If I defend a community’s right to draw lines against such speech, it’s not because I fear discomfort, but because I want to preserve the space where real thought and change can occur.

And no, I don’t want to suppress you or anyone else. You have every right to argue for maximalist free speech — and I’m engaging with you now because I believe in dialogue, too. But that doesn’t mean all speech belongs everywhere. Context matters. Goals matter. Some lines must be drawn — not to silence thought, but to protect the possibility of it.

I've taken quite alot of time to respond to your points and to make my position more clear. I apologise for the length.

It’s ironic — you speak of the sanctity of open discourse, yet your tone is anything but open. You call my position “narcissistic,” “disgusting,” and equate it with “torture.” That’s not argumentation. That’s condemnation disguised as debate. You accuse others of being intolerant while wielding your own form of rhetorical violence — not just disagreeing, but morally indicting, pathologizing, and emotionally shaming. If you believe that open conversation changes minds, why do you model the exact opposite? You speak not to understand, but to humiliate. Not to persuade, but to dominate. — DasGegenmittel

The expression of my position does not preclude the argumentation I've provided for my position, frankly thats quite a strange statement as the latter is seemingly impossible without the former.

"narcassism": I believe it is irrational to be so certain in ones moral beliefs to ignore opposition and disregard it as holding no value. Personally, I think narcassistic is an accurate descriptor for such a trait but I dont mean it as an insult against your character.

"disgust": I may find many forms of expression to be disgusting, and yet hold the belief that one should be legally allowed to express them regardless.

"torture": I simply state a truth that to take away ones right to express their beliefs is a form of psychological torture, which essentially criminalises philosophical connection as connecting with like-minded people requires expression. If you disagree: would a law making the expression of ones homosexuality illegal, be considered psychological torture? To me the answer is clearly yes, and this extends to all forms of expression. At the very least you can understand my designation as non-arbitrary.

You are arguing for the use of physical violence by the state upon the individual for the expression of certain beliefs. Regardless of whether you describe my expression as "rhetorical violence", it does not change the fact that my belief has nothing to do with physical violence as yours. My expression does not contradict my belief, as if I openly admit I am for the free expression of all beliefs, you shouldn't be surprised that I willingly express my beliefs. You are confusing the desire for freedom of expression as a right, with the idea that I must personally agree with all expression, which isn't the case. I personally wouldn't be friends with people who espouse intolerant beliefs, but I dont believe its okay to use state violence against them.

As I've read your text, I feel as though this potentially isn't your actual belief and that you've grossly misrepresented your position when you referenced the united states in your original text. I am not sure and have continued with the above paragraph as your position.

If speech dehumanizes others or treats them as subhuman, it’s not part of the marketplace of ideas. — DasGegenmittel

Calling free speech “sacred” elevates it beyond critique — DasGegenmittel

It seems I may not have represented my position clearly, so let me explain.

I am a consequentialist, I dont hold freedom of speech as valuable because of a moral principle, I simply believe the experience of expressing oneself to be valuable within its own right and worth protecting. I dont believe freedom of expression to be purely instrumental towards a "marketplace of ideas", and in fact, this seems quite a modern conception of speech that seemingly disregards its natural use within social connection.

I am also not a free speech absolutist, although I beleieve the vast majority of expressions of belief should be allowed with the only real exceptions being harrassment/distruption, slander/misinformation, and contractual obligations, although the details will be subject to debate. So no shouting fire in a theater or racial slurs at passerbys on the street, no spreading false-rumours about someone being a rapist or promiscuous, and no uploading weapon designs on war thunder. However, a non-consequential person saying "I believe X" where X refers to no specific persons, and breaks no agreements, should be allowed to say literally any X.

John Stuart Mill defended free speech because he believed that truth emerges through open debate. But that only works when participants engage each other as equals. When someone’s humanity is under attack, the exchange of ideas collapses into harm. — DasGegenmittel

Should we criminalise all insults? Lying? All levels of disingenuous behaviour that stop truth-seeking? No. Truth should not be the fundamental value that we reduce all actions into. Such advice may be good for communities focused on truth-seeking, such as this forum, but not society at large.

Karl Popper put it bluntly: unlimited tolerance can lead to the end of tolerance. If we tolerate speech that seeks to silence, exclude, or erase others, we’re not preserving freedom — we’re dismantling it. — DasGegenmittel

"In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise."
- Karl Popper, The Open Society And It's Enemies, Chp 7 notes, p.265

Popper argues, as I do, that intolerance should only be rejected when they cannot meet at the level of rational argumentation and begin to act and incite violence.

Such speech doesn’t expand discourse; it drives people out of it. — DasGegenmittel

I dont think this is the case at all. In fact I believe philosophical debate at large to be pretty exclusive to disagreeable personality types, as these will be the people who enjoys conflict the most. Personally, I also dont think debates should be filled with overly sensitive people. Everyone gets dehumanised by someone, I know that billions of people would most likely kill me if given the choice, simply because of differences in ideology. If someone cant handle that then I dont think such discourse is meant for them in the first place. I know that if a radical feminist mentioned a future without men, I wouldn't be dissuaded in the slightest.

You say “ideas are powerless” — but history tells us otherwise. Ideas shape societies, justify atrocities, mobilize violence. The belief that “ideas do no harm” ignores how language constructs power. Would you really argue that “The Holocaust didn’t happen” is just an idea, detached from its historical consequences? — DasGegenmittel

If the consequence of an idea cannot be seperated from the consequence of an action, then the idea was not the cause, the action was. Ideas dont kill people, people kill people. I wouldn't say its detached from history, but I would say it is just an idea. In fact I think we have an even greater responsiblity to provide evidence when requested for historical events and make the historical reality clear. Alot of conspiracy theories can be unraveled by simply engaging a person with some questions and some basic facts.

And no, I don’t want to suppress you or anyone else. You have every right to argue for maximalist free speech — and I’m engaging with you now because I believe in dialogue, too. But that doesn’t mean all speech belongs everywhere. Context matters. Goals matter. Some lines must be drawn — not to silence thought, but to protect the possibility of it. — DasGegenmittel

I agree. I don't think any type of thought should be allowed here. Personally, I'm a bit more open, but it's not my community so I have no right to complain. I'm only arguing against you applying this onto a society at large (you mentioned the US).

That is naive, self-righteous, and once again a misinterpretation of what I wrote. But first, something else…

Would you respond to the following quotes?

• “Society has become a place of female worship, and it’s so fucking wrong. They’re not gods; they’re just fucking cum dumpsters.”
• “Women deserve to be raped if they reject men like us.”
• “All women are nothing but breeding machines for high-status men.”
• “They [homosexuals] must be executed to ‘protect Muslims.’”, “Kill them wherever you find them… the Jews are a people of slander… a treacherous people.”
• “We live in a ‘Jew republic’… Turkish-German men are ‘semen cannons.’”
• “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!” (accompanied by Nazi salutes)
• “Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into the pig Tate’s stomach. Wild!” (This was spoken at a “War Council” celebrating the Sharon Tate murders—commitment to violence as political strategy.)
• “Revolutionary violence is the only way to bring real change. We’re not here to talk. We’re here to fight.”
• “It is legitimate to take up armed struggle against the imperialist system.”
• “Burn the system down. No dialogue with fascists or cops – punch, burn, destroy.”


Now to some aspects of your reaction:

intolerant philosophies ; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. — Ourora Aureis

Misogyny is not a philosophy in any meaningful or systematic sense. It is better understood as a form of ideological prejudice rooted in power structures, rather than a coherent body of thought. Karl Popper would have rejected misogyny as an irrational and dogmatic ideology, incompatible with the values of an open society. Rooted in prejudice rather than critical reasoning, misogyny exemplifies the kind of essentialist thinking he opposed. According to Popper’s paradox of tolerance, a tolerant society must not tolerate intolerant ideologies when they threaten the dignity, rights, or equality of others. Misogyny, in this view, is not a mere difference of opinion, but a form of ideological intolerance that must be met with rational critique—and, where necessary, legal limits.

Ideas dont kill people, people kill people. — Ourora Aureis

This aphorism ignores the causal role ideas often play in motivating and legitimizing harmful actions. Ideas are not inert—they shape beliefs, influence behaviors, and, under certain conditions, directly contribute to violence and oppression.

You are arguing for the use of physical violence by the state upon the individual for the expression of certain beliefs. — Ourora Aureis

That is a misrepresentation of my position. Please show me where I supposedly advocated that. I did not endorse state violence nor the punishment of individuals solely for holding certain beliefs. While one may harbor misogynistic thoughts privately, voicing them publicly is a different issue altogether. I referred to the paradox of tolerance as articulated by Karl Popper, which poses a normative question: Should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance when such tolerance endangers its own foundations? My argument is that this paradox should inform legislative frameworks—not to justify repression, but to set necessary limits when intolerant ideologies pose a real threat to democratic coexistence. Any exercise of state power in this context must be lawful, proportionate, and aim to avoid violence wherever possible. The role of the state includes protecting the rights of all individuals, including those who hold dissenting or even offensive views—but not when those views undermine the very conditions that make open dialogue possible.

They [homosexuals] must be executed to ‘protect Muslims.’”, “Kill them wherever you find them… the Jews are a people of slander… a treacherous people.” — DasGegenmittel

“Revolutionary violence is the only way to bring real change. We’re not here to talk. We’re here to fight.” — DasGegenmittel

“Burn the system down. No dialogue with fascists or cops – punch, burn, destroy.” — DasGegenmittel

These are the only ones which incite violence as a command, so are the only ones that I think are worthy of a discussion for their criminalisation.

This aphorism ignores the causal role ideas often play in motivating and legitimizing harmful actions. — DasGegenmittel

Unfortunately I dont consider this a matter of mere opinion. Ideas cannot cause anything outside of actions, and as such cannot cause anything at all. No matter how much we can correlate idea with action, they remain seperate.

According to Popper’s paradox of tolerance, a tolerant society must not tolerate intolerant ideologies when they threaten the dignity, rights, or equality of others. — DasGegenmittel

Correct, but simply expression of misogyny by itself threatens nothing. As long as someone is rational and not inciting violence, popper would be against criminalising their speech, as expressed in the quote I presented.

That is a misrepresentation of my position. — DasGegenmittel

My argument is that this paradox should inform legislative frameworks—not to justify repression, but to set necessary limits when intolerant ideologies pose a real threat to democratic coexistence. — DasGegenmittel

If by "neccesary limits" you are refering to state law, then my statement is seemingly not a misrepresenation of your position in the slightest. State power is physical violence, so if you are arguing for restrictions to be placed upon speech by the state, you are arguing for them to apply their monopoly on physical violence against the individual. I also never said you were against people holding beliefs and this is not reflected in what I said.

I do have some questions for you I would like for clarification:

- Would you consider the criminalisation of the expression of ones beliefs to be a form of psychological torture? If you believe the answer to be different between intolerant beliefs and tolerant beliefs, could you explain your reasoning.

- Do you believe that rational, coherent, and non-violent, yet intolerant beliefs are possible? If they were possible, would you still wish for their censorship despite their non-violence?

- What makes a belief intolerant? Can there be any intolerant yet true beliefs?

- You said these views are allowed until they make open discourse impossible. Are you for the criminalisation for all disingenuous behaviour? If not, could you explain why?

I can turn on the lights by saying "Hey Siri, turn on the lights" or by clapping my hands or by pushing a button.

Or are you going to argue that no human has ever turned on a light because no human is capable of discharging electricity from his body?

No, humans have invented various mechanisms and lights that can do nothing else but respond to their actions, and therefore their state of on or off is determined by the human being.

So how do you avoid determinism? Again, as it stands I don't see how your position is incompatible with compatibilism.

I just don’t believe in it. It’s self-undermining. Even you avoid it by arbitrarily starting and ending your causal chains wherever you wish. If human beings determine their own actions determinism is false. That’s why I’m incompatiblist.

I agree words do not carry a physical force - this is not in dispute. But you didn't respond to my comments about emotive language. Do you reject the view that there is such thing as emotive language?

Yes I do.

Before you answer, consider a scenario in which you hear about a 5 year old girl getting raped. Of course, the plain facts of the event will enter your mental memory bank ("Sally G. age 5, raped on day x in town y...). But don't you think you would also have an emotional reaction to the news? This extreme example is just to establish that words CAN sometimes evoke emotions. It's not because sounds are being made and heard, but it's because there is information content, and the information (not the sounds) can trigger emotions.

Understand I'm trying to set aside arguing who's right, I'm just trying to understand your point of view.

Yes, I would have an emotional reaction to the news. I am disgusted and angry even considering your example. But it is I who evokes the emotion, drawn as they are from my own body and actions, influenced entirely by what I know, think, understand, believe etc. The words are not responsible in any way for what I feel.

Yes, I would have an emotional reaction to the news. I am disgusted and angry even considering your example. But it is I who evokes the emotion, drawn as they are from my own body and actions, influenced entirely by what I know, think, understand, believe etc. The words are not responsible in any way for what I feel. — NOS4A2

Exactly. And a psychopath would probably not have any emotional response at all, or if they did would probably experience the opposite feelings you are, and Relativitst's example doesn't seem to take this into account.

Their arguments continually keep missing the mark. While they are focused on the cause, we are focused on the effect, or more specifically the difference in effects given the same cause. They refuse to explain why there is a difference in effect given the same cause and given determinism is true.

I still see no evidence supporting your accusation of explicit and immediate violence.

- - -

Your entire line of questioning rests on a series of false equivalences and a profound misunderstanding of the relationship between speech, law, and social harm. You’re operating in a realm of abstract principles, divorced from the practical realities of how societies function and protect themselves. Let’s dismantle this.

First, your continued misrepresentation of my position as advocating for "state violence" is either willfully obtuse or demonstrates a fundamental failure to grasp the concept of a legal framework. Laws against incitement, harassment, and defamation are not random acts of "physical violence"; they are codified, publicly agreed-upon limits designed to balance freedoms and prevent societal harm. When the state enforces a law against someone inciting hatred, it is upholding a legal order designed to protect the rights and safety of all its citizens. To equate this with arbitrary "physical violence" is a rhetorical trick designed to paint any form of regulation as oppressive tyranny. It’s a caricature, not an argument. My position is that the principles of the paradox of tolerance should inform these legal frameworks—a position of civic prudence, not a call for violence.

Now, to your questions, which I will answer directly.

* "Would you consider the criminalisation of the expression of ones beliefs to be a form of psychological torture?"
No. This framing is hyperbolic and frankly, insulting to actual victims of psychological torture. To equate the legal prohibition of publicly expressing, for example, a desire to see a racial group eradicated with the systematic cruelty of torture is a grotesque false equivalence.
Society does not and should not criminalize beliefs (internal states of mind). It regulates actions, and public speech is an action with public consequences. The "discomfort" a person might feel from being legally barred from publicly dehumanizing others is not comparable to the harm, fear, and exclusion experienced by the targeted group. The law, in a just society, must weigh these harms. The "psychological pain" of a racist being unable to broadcast their racism pales in comparison to the psychological and physical threat that racism poses to its victims. Your argument equates the "suffering" of the aggressor with the suffering of the victim. This is a moral and logical failure.

* "Do you believe that rational, coherent, and non-violent, yet intolerant beliefs are possible? If they were possible, would you still wish for their censorship despite their non-violence?"
This is a classic "philosophy 101" hypothetical that is largely irrelevant in practice. Most intolerant ideologies—misogyny, racism, religious supremacism—are fundamentally irrational. They rely on essentialism, prejudice, and a rejection of evidence, which is why Popper would classify them as pseudoscientific and dogmatic.
However, for the sake of argument, let's entertain your hypothetical "rational, non-violent intolerance." The core issue remains the same: Does this speech serve to dehumanize and exclude a group from equal participation in society? If a "belief," no matter how coherently argued, posits that a certain group of people is inherently less worthy of rights, dignity, or social standing, it is an act of social corrosion. Its purpose is not to seek truth, but to establish hierarchy and exclusion.
Censorship is not the goal. The goal is to preserve the foundations of a pluralistic society. If such "rational intolerance" actively undermines the ability of a group to participate in public life without fear or degradation, then a community or a society is justified in drawing a line. The question is not "Is it rational?" but "Does it destroy the conditions for a tolerant society?" The answer is yes.

* "What makes a belief intolerant? Can there be any intolerant yet true beliefs?"
A belief is intolerant when it denies the equal moral worth, dignity, and rights of other human beings based on their identity (race, sex, religion, sexuality, etc.). It is the refusal to extend the principle of tolerance and equality to others. Intolerance is not mere disagreement; it is the active rejection of another's claim to equal standing.
Can an intolerant belief be "true"? No, because intolerance is a normative position, not an empirical one. You cannot empirically "prove" that women are "cum dumpsters" or that Jewish people are "treacherous." These are not statements of fact; they are ideological claims designed to justify hatred and inequality. You are confusing "facts" (objective reality) with "values" (moral or ideological stances). While one might point to empirical data (e.g., statistical differences between groups), the leap from that data to an intolerant conclusion (e.g., "...and therefore this group deserves fewer rights") is a logical fallacy—the is-ought problem. Intolerance is a moral and political choice, not a factual discovery.

* "You said these views are allowed until they make open discourse impossible. Are you for the criminalisation for all disingenuous behaviour? If not, could you explain why?"
This is another false equivalence—a classic slippery slope argument. You are equating bad-faith argumentation in a debate with systemic speech that dehumanizes and incites hatred against entire populations. The two are different in kind and in scale of harm.
Being disingenuous in a debate is a breach of conversational ethics. It makes a specific conversation unproductive. Advocating for the extermination of a race, the subjugation of women, or violence against homosexuals is a threat to the entire social fabric. One is a nuisance; the other is—metaphorically speaking—a poison.
The law must be proportionate. It does not—and should not—concern itself with policing every instance of intellectual dishonesty. It does concern itself with speech that directly threatens public order, incites violence, and undermines the fundamental security and equality of its citizens. My argument is about protecting the foundational pillars of democratic society, not enforcing politeness in online forums— even if it might be a learning for some people. To conflate the two is to trivialize the very real danger of hate speech.

To be fair, it is counterintuitive because for the entirety of linguistic human history we have thought and spoken about language as having supernatural powers.

No, humans have invented various mechanisms and lights that can do nothing else but respond to their actions, and therefore their state of on or off is determined by the human being. — NOS4A2

So you accept that the appropriate speech can cause the lights to turn on or cause a voice-activated forklift to lift a heavy weight?

That’s why I’m incompatiblist. — NOS4A2

But you also believe that we have free will and are an eliminative materialist. So how do you maintain these three positions? Is it because we could have done otherwise? If eliminative materialism is true then we could have done otherwise only if quantum indeterminacy factors into human behaviour (and only if there are no hidden variables), but does this stochasticity really satisfy your agent-causal libertarian free will? Either way, it's still the case that A caused B to happen, even if A could have caused C to happen, and it's still the case that D caused A to happen, even if D could have caused E to happen, and so on and so forth (eventually involving events external to the body).

There's simply no avoiding this without rejecting eliminative materialism in favour of interactionist dualism. But even then, interactionist dualism would only apply to conscious decision-making, not to the involuntary behaviour of the body's sense organs.

So you accept that the appropriate speech can cause the lights to turn on or cause a voice-activated forklift to lift a heavy weight?

I believe you can cause the lights to turn on, yes.

But you also believe that we have free will and are an eliminative materialist. So how do you maintain these three positions? Is it because we could have done otherwise? If eliminative materialism is true then we could have done otherwise only if quantum indeterminacy factors into human behaviour (and only if there are no hidden variables), but does this stochasticity really satisfy your agent-causal libertarian free will? Either way, it's still the case that A caused B to happen, even if A could have caused C to happen, and it's still the case that D caused A to happen, even if D could have caused E to happen, and so on and so forth (eventually involving events external to the body).

There's simply no avoiding this without rejecting eliminative materialism in favour of interactionist dualism. But even then, interactionist dualism would only apply to conscious decision-making, not to the involuntary behaviour of the body's sense organs.

I’ve avoided and and am satisfied and for the reasons I’ve stated.

To be fair, it is counterintuitive because for the entirety of linguistic human history we have thought and spoken about language as having supernatural powers. — NOS4A2

:smile:
Ironically it is only our native language that has this supernatural power as hearing a language I don't know has no supernatural power over me.

I’ve avoided and and am satisfied and for the reasons I’ve stated. — NOS4A2

Your reasons do not address the issue at all. It's quite simple; if eliminative materialism is true and if hidden variables explain quantum indeterminacy then determinism is true. Therefore if determinism is false then either eliminative materialism is false or there are no hidden variables to explain quantum indeterminacy: Therefore if we have libertarian free will then either eliminative materialism is false or free will is nothing more than behaviour influenced by quantum indeterminacy.

But, again, free will has nothing prima facie to do with the involuntary behaviour of our sense organs.

I believe you can cause the lights to turn on, yes. — NOS4A2

So the causal power of speech extends beyond the immediate transfer of kinetic energy. I can cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights" and I can cause the living room blinds to open by saying "Siri, open the living room blinds". Therefore, your reasoning below is fallacious:

So the superstitious imply a physics of magical thinking that contradicts basic reality: that symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols. — NOS4A2

Your reasons do not address the issue at all. It's quite simple; if eliminative materialism is true and if hidden variables explain quantum indeterminacy then determinism is true. If eliminative materialism is true and if determinism is false then either we don't have free will or free will is nothing more than the outcome of stochastic quantum events — events which are nonetheless caused to happen by prior physical events.

But, again, free will has nothing prima facie to do with the involuntary behaviour of our sense organs.

They do address the issue that we’ve been discussing for pages. But you’re causing me to not understand. As far as I know eliminative materialism is the claim that some of the mental states posited thus far do not actually exist. What does quantum indeterminacy and hidden variables have to do with eliminate materialism?

So the causal power of speech extends beyond the immediate transfer of kinetic energy. I can cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights" and I can cause the living room blinds to open by saying "Siri, open the living room blinds". Therefore, your reasoning below is fallacious:

You’re speaking about the false analogy of non-agents designed by agents to activate upon certain sounds, mechanistically triggering a limited set of actions. Can you turn the lights on with your voice without saying “Siri”? That’s your causal power of speech in a nutshell.

To equate this with arbitrary "physical violence" is a rhetorical trick designed to paint any form of regulation as oppressive tyranny. — DasGegenmittel

I think this is a bit of a strawman. I didnt say the physical violence was arbitrary, but I did point out that it was physical violence that is required to enforce these laws and so you must recognise that as what you are using. As I've said before, I believe certain limits are neccesary when regarding incitement, slander, harrassment etc. but I still recognise that I am condoning the use of physical force to enforce these ends. Personally, I think its powerful rhetoric, but theres no "trick" behind it. All laws are upheld with threat of physical violence by the state.

This framing is hyperbolic and frankly, insulting to actual victims of psychological torture. — DasGegenmittel

Perhaps we have different views of the term "psychological torture", but I think even the most seemingly mundane of interactions can cause a high degree of psychological suffering, and as it is done purposely, I would consider it a form of torture. While you dislike the terminology, you do seem to agree that it would cause psychological suffering, but you consider the alternative to cause even more.

I find that point to be quite interesting. Do you believe that a society should always adjust itself towards maximal happiness/ minimal suffering, even at the cost of causing suffering within others? If not, then it would suggest you believe the suffering of the "victim" to be inherently more valuable than the suffering of the "aggressor". I'd like you to explain what aspect you find to be more valuable. Personally, I've always felt that I've suffered more when I was unable to express myself compared to when someone expressed an intolerance against me, so my intuition would disagree. Perhaps this is the centre of our disagreement? If so, its seems to be driven largely by personality.

We both agree that thoughts themselves shouldn't be criminalised.

You also clarified that you see public speech as an action, which is interesting to me. Do you differentiate between a private expression of belief and a public expression? If so, how do you differentiate them? Ideally, would you allow private expression of intolerant beliefs?

To aid with this, I'll present some scenarios and I'd like you to express where you think the line is:
1. Writing intolerant beliefs in a personal diary.
2. Discussing intolerant beliefs with a friend privately.
3. Discussing intolerant beliefs with a group of friends.
4. Uploading intolerant beliefs to a private online community of like-minded people.
5. Uploading intolerant beliefs to a public online community.

Assume for examples 1-4 that the intolerant beliefs apply to no one present, so no one could possibly suffer directly from observing it. I'm interested in whether your idea is dependent upon someone experiencing suffering from the beliefs, or whether you believe any philosophical discussion of the beliefs themselves should be banned. If the latter, why not extend into thoughts themselves?

If a "belief," no matter how coherently argued, posits that a certain group of people is inherently less worthy of rights, dignity, or social standing, it is an act of social corrosion. — DasGegenmittel

Intolerance is not mere disagreement; it is the active rejection of another's claim to equal standing. — DasGegenmittel

I am an ethical egoist, meaning that I believe value to be a subjective quality that stems from experience and hence believe that experience is the only source of value. This inherently means that I value my experience above others. Would you consider such a view intolerant because it applies different moral worth to different groups (self vs non-self)? If so, I feel like theres nothing inherent about an intolerant belief being irrational and I'd say most people are intolerant as they will value their friends and family above others.

Do you value humans more than animals? If so, wouldnt that be considered just as intolerant? It seems one either accepts some trait of value which neccesarily rejects some humans (such as intelligence or capacity for suffering) or they accept that humanity is the condition for value (which seems rather prejudiced against animals). To value is inherently discriminatory in nature, not because one views one group as "superior" or whatever, but because value is defined by prioritisation.

Even then we may value our pets and children equally but consider it unwise to treat them as having equal legal ability for their lack of intelligence and understanding. Personally it seems to me that society holds many "intolerances" which are entirely justified and understood to be so. Hence, it doesn't even seem that "intolerance" is inherently negative under the definition you have provided.

intolerance is a normative position, not an empirical one. — DasGegenmittel

I do accept your descriptive-normative distinction, although I'd like to apply it to create a structurely similar argument to gregory to try to challenge this notion that "intolerance" is inherently negative further.

I think society would be better if in 10,000 years people were more intelligent on average than they are today.

Now, that statement is "intolerant" against humanity as it currently exists, and yet I wouldn't expect any backlash on it. Just as I wouldnt for wishing for greater health, or education.

However, inserting sex or race would fundamentally be seen as negative, as we've seen. This suggests to me that you aren't actually against intolerance, but certain types of intolerance while others are considered perfectly fine or even good.

A simple response would be, why? Why are you okay with certain intolerance but not for those traits? I personally think you'll find that there are many forms of intolerance we accept which we probably shouldn't, and that we generally reject some when there is emotional connections or disagreement over the empirical facts. For example, I reject the notion that future should be without women, because I think women have value which would be lost if we did so, but not because that view is "intolerant".

The two are different in kind and in scale of harm. — DasGegenmittel

I agree but I think disingenuous argumentation is most likey much more prevalent and attributed to more harm than hate speech, although this is simply a disagreement so theres not really a line of argumentation to go down.

I still see no evidence supporting your accusation of explicit and immediate violence.

They do address the issue that we’ve been discussing for pages. But you’re causing me to not understand. As far as I know eliminative materialism is the claim that some of the mental states posited thus far do not actually exist. What does quantum indeterminacy and hidden variables have to do with eliminate materialism? — NOS4A2

If eliminative materialism is true then mental states do not exist and everything is physical. If hidden variables explain quantum indeterminacy then all physical events — including human behaviour — are deterministic. If there are no hidden variables then quantum indeterminacy is true randomness, so all physical events — including human behaviour — are either deterministic or truly random.

If some human behaviour is neither deterministic nor truly random then some human behaviour has a non-physical explanation, and so eliminative materialism is false and something like interactionist dualism is true.

You’re speaking about the false analogy of non-agents designed by agents to activate upon certain sounds, mechanistically triggering a limited set of actions. Can you turn the lights on with your voice without saying “Siri”? That’s your causal power of speech in a nutshell. — NOS4A2

The comment I was addressing did not mention agency. It only mentioned “symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, affect[ing] and mov[ing] other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols.” That is precisely what happens when I say “Siri, turn on the lights” or “Siri, open the blinds,” and so it is not "superstition" or "magical thinking."

And you don’t appear to have a consistent response to this. You sometimes appear to accept that speech can causally influence machines and sometimes you don’t, explicitly denying that my speech can cause a voice-activated forklift to lift a weight but accepting that my speech can cause the lights to turn on?

[.

Yes, I would have an emotional reaction to the news. I am disgusted and angry even considering your example. But it is I who evokes the emotion, drawn as they are from my own body and actions, influenced entirely by what I know, think, understand, believe etc. The words are not responsible in any way for what I feel. — NOS4A2

I wasn't proposing any responsibility, I was trying to demonstrate that there can be more to the meaning of words than a dictionary can convey. In this case, the full meaning of "child rape" includes the emotion. This is analogous to the full meaning of "red", which includes the qualitative experience of reddness - that cannot be conveyed with words.

I get it, that you don't accept this framework. I hope you can better understand why I do.

for the expression of certain beliefs — Ourora Aureis

I would want to say no one has advocated for this. Anywhere in the thread.

but certain types of intolerance while others are considered perfectly fine or even good. — Ourora Aureis

Yep. Arbitrary intolerance is not. Intolerance which has a requisite reason can always be argued for. This, for example, would go toward an argument for banning burqas etc... on transparency grounds.

This goes to the previous - no one thinks arbitrary restrictions on speech are a good move (unless, eg, truly racist in which case X group shouldn't speak for arbitrary (but orthogonal) reasons).

Anywhere in the thread. — AmadeusD

Their original post was in the ban thread, but I thought responding in this thread would be more applicable. They claim that certain expressions of intolerance should be banned, which I consider equivalent to applying violence against their expression, as this is the only way a government can enforce law. I think maybe people are not understanding the definition of violence? To elaborate, I could expand it to "physical force likely to cause harm when non-compliant", examples of such force would be tasers, K-9's, tear gas, rubber bullets etc. which are used against those who resist arrest/imprisonment. It should be considered the same type of violence that enforces taxes and all other laws.

Arbitrary intolerance is not. — AmadeusD

I'm not sure I'd agree. For example, having particular tastes in music would be an arbitrary intolerance. I personally dont have a reason for disliking certain genres, I just dont resonate with them. If applied to people, I'd say everyone has particular tastes in personality types. Arbitrary Intolerances don't seem to be that inappropriate at all, because they're simply expressions of ones emotions rather than beliefs. Clearly we believe expressions of sexual preference to be okay, so I fail to see why this should be different on non-sexual grounds.

Intolerance which has a requisite reason can always be argued for. — AmadeusD

I agree, which is why I would consider it wrong to dismiss certain intolerant expressions outright as it presumes they have no requisite reasons. However, I think even the most common forms of racism, sexism and the like are based off some belief relevant to group differences rather than being arbitary. The important factor there being that empirical arguments can be argued for and against with evidence, rather than being entirely normative claims like DasGegenmittel suggested.

no one thinks arbitrary restrictions on speech are a good move — AmadeusD

I agree, and I think everyone here does too.

You sometimes appear to accept that speech can causally influence machines and sometimes you don’t — Michael

There is nothing contradictory about this. In fact, this is the actual point that we are making - that some people can be influenced (but not directly caused) by speech and some aren't. We are simply trying to ask you why there is a distinction, and since there is a distinction then maybe one's speech is not the immediate cause of another's actions, but can be a contributor, but that is only determined after the speech is made, but before the behavioral response.

I have showed that people are influenced by another's false speech when they do not have access to the information that would prevent them from acting on the faulty information. Whose fault is it that a person lacks the necessary information to make informed decisions? Did the person make deliberate choices about which sources they receive information from and exclude others (living in a bubble), or is it the media that controls our access to information's fault? So there seems to be a more immediate cause to one's actions and that is their access to relevant information that would either reject or accept what is currently being said and the culpability would be laid at the feet of either the media itself or at your own feet as the sources of information you have chosen to listen to or not. Isn't this why it is illegal to groom a child - because a child has not had enough life experiences (access to relevant information) to reject what the groomer is saying? The child would be innocently ignorant. An adult living in a bubble could be living in a bubble of their own making.

I'm arguing against this claim of his:

So the superstitious imply a physics of magical thinking that contradicts basic reality: that symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols.

It's false. I can open the blinds by saying "Siri, open the blinds."

If eliminative materialism is true then mental states do not exist and everything is physical. If hidden variables explain quantum indeterminacy then all physical events — including human behaviour — are deterministic. If there are no hidden variables then quantum indeterminacy is true randomness, so all physical events — including human behaviour — are either deterministic or truly random.

If some human behaviour is neither deterministic nor truly random then some human behaviour has a non-physical explanation, and so eliminative materialism is false and something like interactionist dualism is true.

I don’t follow. It’s far too abstract for my limited imagination and intelligence.

For me, the only question that needs be answered is “what object or force determines human behavior?”. If it is the agent, then he has free will. If it is some other object or force, he has no free will.

Whether the agent is physical or non-physical is largely a matter of identity and biology.

The comment I was addressing did not mention agency. It only mentioned “symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, affect[ing] and mov[ing] other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols.” That is precisely what happens when I say “Siri, turn on the lights” or “Siri, open the blinds,” and so it is not "superstition" or "magical thinking."

No, the kinetic energy of your voice moves a diaphragm or some other device in the microphone. That's it. That's as far as your "causal influence" goes.

And you don’t appear to have a consistent response to this. You sometimes appear to accept that speech can causally influence machines and sometimes you don’t, explicitly denying that my speech can cause a voice-activated forklift to lift a weight but accepting that my speech can cause the lights to turn on?

It's a problem I have with the weasel word "causally influence" and the limited knowledge I have of the components of the device. I've already admitted the kinetic energy in the sound waves of your voice can cause something to move in the listening-component (like any other sound wave), but weather you "causally influence" the behavior of the entire machine I cannot fathom because the machine is largely following the instructions of its programming or artificial intelligence, and not necessarily your voice.

I wasn't proposing any responsibility, I was trying to demonstrate that there can be more to the meaning of words than a dictionary can convey. In this case, the full meaning of "child rape" includes the emotion. This is analogous to the full meaning of "red", which includes the qualitative experience of reddness - that cannot be conveyed with words.

I get it, that you don't accept this framework. I hope you can better understand why I do.

I better understand. But where do you believe the meaning lies?

where do you believe the meaning lies? — NOS4A2

Meaning is within minds. By writing this response, my objective is to reproduce the meanings from my mind into yours. Of course, this depends on you reading it - and you may interpret it a bit differently than I intend, because you bring a different interpretive framework to the table.

No, the kinetic energy of your voice moves a diaphragm or some other device in the microphone. That's it. That's as far as your "causal influence" goes. — NOS4A2

It's not as far as the causal influence goes. I turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights" or by clapping my hands or by pushing a button.

You seemed to accept this before.

It's a problem I have with the weasel word "causally influence" and the limited knowledge I have of the components of the device. I've already admitted the kinetic energy in the sound waves of your voice can cause something to move in the listening-component (like any other sound wave), but weather you "causally influence" the behavior of the entire machine I cannot fathom because the machine is largely following the instructions of its programming or artificial intelligence, and not necessarily your voice. — NOS4A2

My computer displays these words on my screen as I type them because I type them. It's not a mere coincidence that they correlate. There is a causal chain of events. What is so difficult to understand about this?

For me, the only question that needs be answered is “what object or force determines human behavior?”. If it is the agent, then he has free will. — NOS4A2

Which is consistent with compatibilism.

But if you want to argue that we have free will and that determinism is false then your only apparent options are interactionist dualism (in which case eliminative materialism, and physicalism in general, is false) and quantum indeterminacy without hidden variables (in which case some things are just random, but still the effect of some physical cause).

They claim that certain expressions of intolerance should be banned, which I consider equivalent to applying violence against their expression, as this is the only way a government can enforce law. I think maybe people are not understanding the definition of violence? To elaborate, I could expand it to "physical force likely to cause harm when non-compliant", examples of such force would be tasers, K-9's, tear gas, rubber bullets etc. which are used against those who resist arrest/imprisonment. It should be considered the same type of violence that enforces taxes and all other laws. — Ourora Aureis

Come on — it’s almost comical how you blow my point up to whatever scale you fancy, as though violence were a single end-stage toggle instead of a spectrum with crucial distinctions like coercion in the middle.

Your line of reasoning conflates very different kinds of “violence” and then extrapolates a single case to the worst-case scenario. It slips into equivocation by treating the conceptual act of banning intolerant speech as the same kind of violence as a state officer’s taser or tear gas. Yes, any law can be backed by physical force in the last resort, but the rule itself is not ipso facto an act of bodily harm.

When we test your claim against real philosophers, the picture is clearer. John Stuart Mill’s harm principle allows speech to be curbed only when it directly and foreseeably harms others. Vicious but purely verbal misogyny hovers at the edge; once it tips into incitement or dehumanisation (“women are a disappointment … hopefully no females in 10 000 years”), Mill would treat that as actionable because it primes real-world harm. Karl Popper’s “paradox of tolerance” goes one step earlier: a tolerant society must refuse protection to movements whose goal is to destroy that very tolerance. So both thinkers champion robust debate, yet both agree that speech whose purpose is to strip a group of its humanity or safety falls outside the safe harbour of free expression.

The slogan “a speech ban is violence, because every law is enforced with tasers or cages” flattens at least three layers that Mill, Popper (and, later, Johan Galtung) keep separate:
1. Physical violence – deliberate bodily harm.
2. State coercion – legally authorised pressure such as fines or jail, ideally proportionate and rights-based.
3. Structural violence – institutional arrangements that systematically deny opportunities.

To treat every act of state coercion as morally identical to a street beating erases these gradations — and, paradoxically, hands the moral high ground to those who really do preach or practise brute violence.

With that line of reasoning, you’re not really having a debate so much as running a semantic rack-stretching experiment.