It boils down to whether or not there are standards that are more objective that can be applied. — Relativist

And there are not. :grin:

I know that's what you were asking for. I'm interested in why. — Isaac

Weren't you reading what I was writing? I'm challenging that there's the correlation that you're claiming there is.

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. — 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.

To those who argue both that hate speech is not causal to action, and that eroding free speech is bad for society, I'm wondering in what way is erosion of free speech meant to be bad. — Isaac

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.

I'm challenging that there's the correlation that you're claiming there is. — Terrapin Station

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).

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. — Terrapin Station

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?

But why should your "challenge" be given the time of day? — S

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. <shrugs> Normally I'd expect folks who don't care if I agree to just ignore me.

Not allowing people to say/express whatever they feel like saying is bad in my opinion. — Terrapin Station

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.

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. <shrugs> Normally I'd expect folks who don't care if I agree to just ignore me. — Terrapin Station

You don't think whether your "challenge" is reasonable or warranted should be a matter of concern?

Absolutely any claim I forward will have flaws in its methodology. — Isaac

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.

Why? Is this just a foundational feeling you have — Isaac

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.

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. — Isaac

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!".

You don't think whether your "challenge" is reasonable or warranted should be a matter of concern? — S

Do you think that I might be challenging something where I don't feel that it's reasonable or warranted?

An experiment is set up where we have, say, 500 people in an auditorium who are exposed to hate speech — Terrapin Station

Immediately that would fail the ethical standards. I can assure you of that because I have been partly responsible for writing them.

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 — Terrapin Station

We cannot risk inciting criminal action. Again, this would not get past the ethics board.

This isn't the only example that I'd say has no methodological problems for stating a correlation. — 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.

Do you think that I might be challenging something where I don't feel that it's reasonable or warranted? — Terrapin Station

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.

No, but that's the problem. Do Flat Earthers not also feel that they're reasonable and warranted in their "challenges"? — S

I'm sure they do. So it wouldn't make any sense to ask them whether their challenges shouldn't be reasonable and warranted.

An experiment is set up where we have, say, 500 people in an auditorium who are exposed to hate speech
— Terrapin Station

Immediately that would fail the ethical standards. I can assure you of that because I have been partly responsible for writing them.

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
— Terrapin Station

We cannot risk inciting criminal action. Again, this would not get past the ethics board.

This isn't the only example that I'd say has no methodological problems for stating a correlation.
— 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. — Isaac

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.

It's not that unusual of a stance. It's the basis of libertarianism for example. — Terrapin Station

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?

But even if it did go ahead, and even if no one committed any hate crime afterwards, that wouldn't prove anything of relevance. — S

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.

Individual liberty, even in libertarianism, is weighed against imposing restrictions on the liberty of others. — Isaac

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.

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. — Isaac

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.)

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 at a later date crime as a result? — S

Yes, I didn't get to mentioning the low sample size.

Of course I wouldn't say that it "proves" anything, since that's a category error anyway. — Terrapin Station

Don't be pedantic, like with "care" earlier. You know what I mean.

I'd simply say that there's not a problem with the methodology. — Terrapin Station

Of course you'd say that, because you're far too entrenched in your position to acknowledge any faults with it.

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. — 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.

Yes, I didn't get to mentioning the low sample size. — Isaac

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

That's not standard libertarianism. It's something you're making up/based on your own views rather. — Terrapin Station

Are you suggesting standard libertarianism doesn't weight individual freedoms against the restriction of liberty of others?

Of course you'd say that, because you're too entrenched in your position to acknowledge any faults with it. — S

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.

No, it wouldn't. It would suggest that it causes violence for approximately every 1 in 5,000 people, — 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?

Are you suggesting standard libertarianism doesn't weight individual freedoms against the restriction of liberty of others? — Isaac

Not that vaguely. I explained it and also copy-pasted the explanation again.

Whatever I suggest you're going to say has methodological problems — Terrapin Station

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?

Yes. Almost certainly I will. That's the point I've been trying to make. — Isaac

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?

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? — Terrapin Station

The actual experiment - not an easy one to either set up or perform using surveys and interviews - would be better if it compared groups of people who have been exposed to groups not exposed. So, even if most people exposed did not commit violence, if there was an increase in violence by those exposed we now have a correlation between exposure to hate speech and increased numbers of violent acts. Or we get another result. I haven't heard anyone argue that listening to hate speech, even regularly, lead to the majority of people committing acts of violence (against those besmirched or demonized by the hate speech). I think most on that side of the debate think that it increases the number of violent attacks. I suppose if there is a systematic hate speech propaganda system in place: we can all come up with historical examples: then some would argue that a majority would commit acts of violence or to approve or not disapprove of them. But in general I don't think they are expecting a hate speaker at a rally leading to 51% of the audience committing hate crimes.