You can not possibly be that much of a moron. Seriously. — Terrapin Station

This coming from the guy who said the following:

Should the state prosecute people who order killings or have a stance or an ideology which promotes violence?
— Wittgenstein

No, not in my view. A number of times I've brought up the extreme case that people like to bring up (and I now see you did in the following post): to my knowledge, Hitler never killed anyone. I don't know what, if any crimes (that I'd consider a crime) he committed, but certainly no speech, nothing he ever ordered, etc. should be considered a crime. — Terrapin Station

...among other gems.

Every time you say this:

I'm a free speech absolutist. — Terrapin Station

...you're basically saying, "I'm a massive moron".

I'm awaiting the benefits side of the cost-benefits analysis that would counter-balance allowing war crimes to go unpunished and psychopathic dictators to be allowed to order torture and murder with absolute impunity. I hope also to get an explanation of why the entire advertising industry need not exist because speech acts can't contribute causally to changes in consumer behaviour. Or why voting behaviour has all along been absolutely invulnerable to being affected by political propaganda. And of course for these extraordinary claims, at least some empirical evidence and at at least a bare-bones theoretical framework that explains the process by which decisions appear out of nowhere with no causal relationship whatsoever to what precedes them.

Of course, I'll get none of this, so maybe we can just focus on the extent to which the law should control hate speech—where to draw the line, the dangers of drawing it in the wrong place, and so on? As that actually has the potential to be a productive discussion. :pray:

(And let's call it a day on the ad homs.)

I'm awaiting the benefits side of the cost-benefits analysis that would counter-balance allowing war crimes to go unpunished and psychopathic dictators to be allowed to order torture and murder with absolute impunity. — Baden

I would think that ordering torture and other war crimes are not merely speech acts, but the use of power. I can see why they might be good examples to test how pure free speech advocates think about cause, but most free speech advocates see that as criminal or potentially so. Our free speech laws or changes in them are not going to do anything about psychopathic dictators however. They would be making their own laws.

You can not possibly be that much of a moron. Seriously. — Terrapin Station


This coming from the guy who said the following:

Should the state prosecute people who order killings or have a stance or an ideology which promotes violence?
— Wittgenstein

No, not in my view. A number of times I've brought up the extreme case that people like to bring up (and I now see you did in the following post): to my knowledge, Hitler never killed anyone. I don't know what, if any crimes (that I'd consider a crime) he committed, but certainly no speech, nothing he ever ordered, etc. should be considered a crime. — Terrapin Station


...among other gems.

Every time you say this:

I'm a free speech absolutist. — Terrapin Station


...you're basically saying, "I'm a massive moron". — S

What makes you a moron here is that you think that particular ethical stances have anything to do with intelligence.

I'm awaiting the benefits side of the cost-benefits analysis that would . . . — Baden

Not only are you ignoring that cost-benefits analyses are just something we're making up, where there's no correct answer, because there are no factual benefits or costs in terms of detriments, but you're simply assuming that cost-benefits analyses are how these issues should be approached.

I would think that ordering torture and other war crimes are not merely speech acts, but the use of power. — Coben

So how do you propose we measure 'power' in order to use it to determine which speech acts should be banned? Obviously, given your example, if a leader says "kill those people" they have sufficient power to fall foul of your threshold, but what about an influential celebrity, a community leader, a parent, a school teacher? What level of power removes criminal responsibility for you?

Our free speech laws or changes in them are not going to do anything about psychopathic dictators however. They would be making their own laws. — Coben

Only once in power. The point is to minimise the risk of them getting there in the first place.

What level of power removes criminal responsibility for you? — Isaac

Honestly, I don't know. I have been hopping sides of the fence in the thread and I am not sure what my position is on hate speech, nor do I have a worked out policy. I think I would distinguish between people saying stuff and people giving orders to people they have power over. IOW even if I had laws against hate speech in a more general way, I would still have a significant distinction between someone with authority over someone else ordering them to do something and someone saying something to fellow citizens. I think these are qualitatively different situations.

Only once in power. The point is to minimise the risk of them getting there in the first place. — Isaac

That seems like a different kind of issue. And unless we get really deep into our hate laws hermeneutics, they'll just use code, get in and do stuff.

Not only are you ignoring that cost-benefits analyses are just something we're making up, where there's no correct answer, because there are no factual benefits or costs in terms of detriments, but you're simply assuming that cost-benefits analyses are how these issues should be approached. — Terrapin Station

If I remember correctly, your initial argument on why all speech should be legal was about teaching people to make their own decisions and ignore the influence that the speech of others has on them.

How is that not a cost-benefit analysis on your part? What is your argument for approaching the issue the way you approach it?

I've mainly followed the Terrapin stuff, though not at all completely. I mainly noticed posts near mine in my dialogue with Terrapin and then more recently with S. But OK, I missed stuff. And missed Terrapin doing this - he was the one I noticed being insulted quite a bit by others - if he did.

Still, it seems like role modeling speech without hate might be a good start for those who want to limit speech in general. And yes, I understand the difference between the kinds of insults I saw and saying 'niggers need to be shot' or whatever.

Off-topic stuff like this is just going to be deleted in future (and Terrapin can go advertise his absolutist views on his own discussion if that's all he wants to do). And the topic here is 'Should hate speech be allowed' not whether Terrapin (or anyone else) is a moron.

If I remember correctly, your initial argument on why all speech should be legal was about teaching people to make their own decisions and ignore the influence that the speech of others has on them.

How is that not a cost-benefit analysis on your part? What is your argument for approaching the issue the way you approach it? — Echarmion

Moral stances are ways that we (individually) feel about interpersonal behavior that we (again individually) consider to be more significant than etiquette.

I didn't say anything about "teaching people to make their own decisions." People do make their own decisions--even if that decision is to go along with someone else's suggestion.

Re the other part what I said was "The world we need is one in where people don't believe anything just because someone said it, don't automatically follow anyone's orders just because someone gave them, etc. "

How would that be a "cost/benefit" analysis? What am I saying about the "cost" of anything?

Moral stances are ways that we (individually) feel about interpersonal behavior that we (again individually) consider to be more significant than etiquette. — Terrapin Station

I am aware that this is your view

Re the other part what I said was "The world we need is one in where people don't believe anything just because someone said it, don't automatically follow anyone's orders just because someone gave them, etc. "

How would that be a "cost/benefit" analysis? What am I saying about the "cost" of anything? — Terrapin Station

You're starting that you consider a certain state of affairs to be more desirable than another. This implies you judge the benefits of that state of affairs to be more significant than the costs. If you have another justification, you have not given it. If you don't consider a justification necessary, you cannot ask others to provide one.

The topic here is 'Should hate speech be allowed' not whether Terrapin (or anyone else) is a moron. — Baden

I haven't written any posts about whether Terrapin is a moron in this thread or whether anyone else is. Earlier I raised the issue of the specific case of people who want to limit free speech, iow do not share Terrapin's aboslutism, posting insults at him. I thought this was ironic, though not necessarily hypocritical (I now add) since this would depend on their ideas about what should be limited. It was pointed out to me that I had missed insults aimed at the people who wanted to limit free speech and I did find one specifically hurled by Terrapin. Of course, he, given his position need not have a problem with the hurling of insults.

I do think the specific case of people here who are advocating for limitations on free speech insulting people they disagree with makes for a nice case for the issue of Should hate speech be allowed.

We can do this without getting into the details of how appropriate the insults are, but rather see what the limits are. Why do the same people who advocate limitation use insults? What is the line they would draw and why? That seems like a great way to clarify position and actually come up with what the criteria are. Or some of the criteria.

and Terrapin can go advertise his absolutist views on his own discussion if that's all he wants to do — Baden

I don't see what this has to do with my post, but it seems to me he has from the beginning of the thread responded to posts and argued a position and one that is precisely on topic. He thinks the answer to the question is no and has argued for that. I don't agree with his absolutism, but I think couching his contributions to the thread as advertising is off and an odd thing to include in your response to me, even odder if you are a moderator, which you post might indicate, and itself off topic.

This implies you judge the benefits of that state of affairs to be more significant than the costs. — Echarmion

Nope. Not thinking about it in that way at all. Again, I said nothing about "costs," and having a preference (which is what feeling that x is more desirable than y is) doesn't at all imply thinking about anything in terms of a cost/benefit analysis.

If you don't consider a justification necessary, you cannot ask others to provide one. — Echarmion

That would be a completely arbitrary credo, but I'm not asking anyone to give a justification of their stance on whether hate speech should be allowed or not at any rate. What I asked for was support for claims being made about factual matters.

And if I reply to this, it will be further off-topic, so let's just leave it.

Nope. Not thinking about it in that way at all. Again, I said nothing about "costs," and having a preference (which is what feeling that x is more desirable than y is) doesn't at all imply thinking about anything in terms of a cost/benefit analysis. — Terrapin Station

You expressed more than just your preference for a given world though. You gave that preference as the reason why you don't want any speech acts to be illegal. If an act leads to something you prefer, then that's a benefit. And if you're basing your argument on the benefits of not legislating speech, you're doing a cost-benefit analysis, albeit a one- sided one.

Of course, this is ultimately irrelevant since there is no point in arguing over mere preferences.

That would be a completely arbitrary credo, — Terrapin Station

It's called intellectual honesty.

but I'm not asking anyone to give a justification of their stance on whether hate speech should be allowed or not at any rate. — Terrapin Station

So, why did you write this:

you're simply assuming that cost-benefits analyses are how these issues should be approached. — Terrapin Station

?

What makes you a moron here is that you think that particular ethical stances have anything to do with intelligence. — Terrapin Station

Baden said to give it a rest with the insults, so pack it in, you moron.

You expressed more than just your preference for a given world though. You gave that preference as the reason why you don't want any speech acts to be illegal. If an act leads to something you prefer, then that's a benefit. And if you're basing your argument on the benefits of not legislating speech, you're doing a cost-benefit analysis, albeit a one- sided one. — Echarmion

A cost-benefit analysis requires that someone thinks of something in terms of comparative costs versus benefits.

Otherwise this is the game where we wonder if we can interpret everything in some particular way, regardless of how anyone else is thinking about it.

The topic here is 'Should hate speech be allowed' not whether Terrapin (or anyone else) is a moron. — Baden

So is the 'whether Terrapin (or anyone else) is a moron' discussion on another thread then? I think Zizek has written a paper on that recently.

:lol:

I think Zizek has written a paper on that recently. — Isaac

The problem is that he got mucous all over it while reading it out loud, and now it's illegible.

The problem is that he got mucous all over it while reading it out loud, and now it's illegible. — Terrapin Station

That's what the beard's for.

Sorry, we're supposed to be giving the insults a rest aren't we. And Zizek hasn't even posted yet.

This sort of stuff is probably what puts him off.

A cost-benefit analysis requires that someone thinks of something in terms of comparative costs versus benefits. — Terrapin Station

Right. So you're saying that you only thought of benefits, and therefore it's not a cost-benefit analysis? But other people still need to justify why they are doing a cost-benefit analysis with regards to speech?

Right. So you're saying that you only thought of benefits, — Echarmion

Not necessarily as benefits, but it's too much quibbling to argue about that. So yes.

There's no "cost" to consider.

But other people still need to justify why they are doing a cost-benefit analysis with regards to speech? — Echarmion

I didn't say anything like that. I was pointing out that there's nothing factual about whether anything is a cost or benefit.

I didn't say anything like that. I was pointing out that there's nothing factual about whether anything is a cost or benefit. — Terrapin Station

You were criticizing @Baden for simply "assuming" a cost-benefit analysis is the correct approach. While using something very similar as your own approach.

Can this topic actually be usefully discussed or is it all just a matter of individual preferences, like favourite colours?

You were criticizing Baden for simply "assuming" a cost-benefit analysis is the correct approach. While using something very similar as your own approach. — Echarmion

But I'm not using a cost/benefit analysis approach.

Again, you can't read any preference as a cost/benefit approach.

Any moral stance (as well as stances about what sorts of legislation we should have, etc.) is just a matter of individual preferences. I don't agree that that implies that we can't discuss them, but there aren't correct answers.

Which wouldn't be problems then. One can't really complain about people who try to limit free speech if one thinks speech cannot have negative effects on people, even other people.

Which wouldn't be problems then. One can't really complain about people who try to limit free speech if one thinks speech cannot have negative effects on people, even other people. — Coben

It's not that speech can't have an effect on others. It's that it can't be shown to force them to perform particular actions.

But I'm not using a cost/benefit analysis approach. — Terrapin Station

What's the difference, other than you giving it a different name?

Again, you can't read any preference as a cost/benefit approach. — Terrapin Station

No, but you explicitly argued in terms of the consequences of certain legislation.

Any moral stance (as well as stances about what sorts of legislation we should have, etc.) is just a matter of individual preferences. I don't agree that that implies that we can't discuss them, but there aren't correct answers. — Terrapin Station

What is there to discuss if there are no correct, and therefore also no false, answers?

"The world we need is one in where people don't believe anything just because someone said it, don't automatically follow anyone's orders just because someone gave them, etc. " — Terrapin Station

I could be wrong (a regular occurrence) but I think most of us here would agree that such a world would be preferable to the world we currently live in - a world in which most people do believe things just because someone said it and in which most people will automatically follow orders when given by a person or persons in authority.

Is this world even possible given human nature and the history of mankind? I'm highly doubtful, but let's assume that it's possible. Now it becomes a question of methods - how do we achieve this lofty goal that we all agree on?

What I think Echamion and others are saying is that - again given human nature and the history of mankind - allowing all hate speech will increase the odds that that authoritarian regimes will arise - exactly the opposite result that we all desire.