Words? Infammatory? Have you seen the light and converted or something? — unenlightened

Moreover, I heard rumor that the big bad guv'ment had got itself involved. But I guess that is a-okay, here.

Must be some really interesting philosophy at work.

Abuse of hate speech law is a real possibility. No easy general solution. — jorndoe

Great post. Like always. Shoutbox needs more news BTW.

Also, I feel there's an underrepresented if not flat out ignored dynamic of people who are simply inflammatory for inflammation's sake. What I mean by that, and let me give you a little example. A dried out dog turd on a sidewalk can make people frown. But to make someone smile, that takes skill. It's hard. And most people don't have that skill or desire to put in that effort. Shock is easy. It's cheap. Therefore, it along with those who purvey such cheapness as value should be considered socially lower ranking than those who try to bring light and joy into the life of an average person.

My larger suggestion or theory is, these people don't believe in anything other than ego. They, despite claiming otherwise, are actually apolitical. They're simply there for one reason and one reason only. Money. Fame. Power. Etcetera. It's why people use curse words. Or act out. No one paid attention to them otherwise, so they force us, they in affect hold society, and the future of children, mind you, hostage, because they want attention. It's time to stamp out these people once and for all, in my opinion.

What I mean by that last sentiment is, these people, or at least some people, they don't really have a point. Not really. Not one that can be expressed without sensationalism, vulgarity, exhibition, and the like. Not one that people would care for or give the time of day for without. Life is hard. It is full of cruelty and suffering. Therefore, people who are rude or callous must be "real" or "more trustworthy: than those who try to maintain a sense of human dignity. It's a common effect. More people are having kids now, which means the average voter and human person is generally more ignorant, naive, and above all susceptible and malleable than ever before. This is a fact of human history. And people, bad, naive, misguided, and everything in between are taking full advantage of this fact with full knowledge of such.

It's like the late conservative philosopher Roger Scruton said himself: "What is shocking the first time, becomes boring and vacuous when repeated. Therefore, when we as a society value that which is cheap and shocking, we end up in a continual downward spiral of such, continually trying to "outdo" one another with filth and obscenity until that society is robbed of any and all recognizable morals, values, or virtues."

(Alright, Most of that is paraphrased, but I know if he was alive he'd agree spot on! Cheers. And here, here.)

Of particular interest to me is how Austin's distinction of perlocutions from illocutions has been used in solidifying the performative aspect of hate speech, in separating the harm caused in the utterance of some particular speech act from harm caused as a later result of that act. — Banno

It seems that this goes beyond perlocution and illocution. When someone utters, "I hate all stupid XYZs and I wish they would all disappear", the illocution might be an expression of contemptuous emotion, the perlocution might be hurt, feeling of exclusion, anger, or agreement. While we might dislike such locutions, this in itself hardly seems appropriate to legislate against. The target is presumably the second order effects of this kind of sentiment taking root, marginalizing, or worse, endangering, entire groups.

According to Google Ngram (a word/phrase frequency application) "hate speech" did not register as a phrase used in print until 1990. Its rise to prominence follows the classic "hockey stick" pattern -- slow at first, then straight up.

It's a phrase I find unusable, and I don't like "hate-speech laws" and "hate crimes" either. Their meanings are far too vague, which makes them useful for suppression of speech that someone doesn't like.

It's a phrase I find unusable, and I don't like "hate-speech laws" and "hate crimes" either. Their meanings are far too vague, which makes them useful for suppression of speech that someone doesn't like. — BC

It's meaning is very simple and astoundingly clear. It means, of all the real hardship and suffering, true injustice in this world a man can and rightfully should get upset at to the point of action, you were too stupid but to do anything but worry about a trait or quality a man was born with or otherwise has no control over. You don't hate stupid people? I do. But good for you, if you're either that mellow or otherwise ignorant. It's a form of legal eugenics, which I support. If only it was enacted in time.

Not to say it hasn't morphed into something self-defeating. A moral white man coming across an immoral black man committing (or about to commit) a crime against another black man or woman and so the white man decides simply to walk on and not intervene out of fear of an unjust ruling. Who knows. Perhaps that was the very intention. Who could say.

I fixed an ambiguity in the post. I think we are in agreement.

And now the discussion becomes the usual parochial hectoring, as predicted.

So we ought consider the act constituting the locution separately to the act consequential to the locution? The first is protected, the second, not so?

In Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts Rae Langton consider an example elaborated from Austin:

Two men stand beside a woman. The first man turns to the second, and says "Shoot her." The second man looks shocked, then raises a gun and shoots the woman.

Do we say that, since the act of shooting was not constitutive of the utterance of the first man, that he bears no responsibility for the killing? I think not. The consequences of an act might well be considered as part of that act.

Langton uses the argument here to support the case that pornography - a speech act in the broad sense - subordinates and silences women; that the subordination and silencing are inherent in the pornographic act. The subordination and silencing are as much of the pornographic act as the killing is of the order given by the first man.

Recent commentators seem to be in agreement with Langton on this point, when they hold supposed "left wing radicals" responsible for Kirk's murder.

At the least, it is apparent that there is much other consider here. My own intuition is, at least when considering responsibility, to treat the act as a whole, not separating out the illocution of the order from the perlocution of the killing. That is, there are illocutionary acts that are also acts of violence and hate.

Thank you for at least attempting some philosophical analysis.

Another example for consideration. We accept, I hope, that a sign saying "Whites only" on a bus is unacceptable.

Another example, from On ‘Whites Only’ Signs and Racist Hate Speech: Verbal Acts of Racial Discrimination

Imagine that an African American man boards a public bus on which all the other passengers are white. Unhappy with the newcomer, an elderly white man turns to the African American man and says, “Just so you know, because I realize that your kind are not very bright, we don’t like niggers around here,…boy. So, go back to Africa…so you can keep killing each other…and do the world a favor!

What is the salient difference between the utterance as described, and the elderly white man saying "Whites only!"? (Seems that being elderly is relevant - presumed authority. I suspect that now the antagonist would be more likely to be a young white male.)

The conclusion, "we have good reason to believe that some racist hate speech (that in the public bus example) constitutes an illegal act of racial discrimination"; that absolute adherence to freedom of speech is naïve.

I don't like "hate-speech laws" and "hate crimes" either. Their meanings are far too vague, which makes them useful for suppression of speech that someone doesn't like. — BC

And yet outside the USA, they are ubiquitous. Some reasonable sophisticated communities have found ways to live with the tension other than a naïve adherence to freedom of speech.

The truth of the deep leftward bias of all legacy and main stream media (ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, LA Times, Wash. Post, CNN, all things Hollywood) is the fulcrum behind Trump’s continued success and appeal - since 2016.

Libs refuse to see it. It’s a total blind spot. It’s why dems will continue losing outside of the areas where Al of their sheep flock — Fire Ologist

Why are liberal communities composed of sheep but your community isn’t? Should we judge these communities by who is ‘winning’ and who is ‘losing’ , as if either side is in a position to determine the objective correctness of the other’s social , political, ethical and spiritual views? Perhaps we need instead to respect the qualitatively different ways of life each chooses to organize themselves on the basis of.
We are not one country now, we are different cultures moving further and further apart. Urban America is a country within a country and all efforts now should be focused on creating as much separation between those communities as possible rather than urban America trying to appeal to conservative society. Trump’s success isn’t due to urban America getting anything ‘wrong’, any more than Erdogan’s or Orban’s or Le Pen’s or Nigel Farage’s success is due to urbanites in those countries making some mistake of political calculation.

We simply happen to be living though an era in which the cities around the world have rapidly transformed their way of life ( including Hollywood, the urban media hubs, and academic centers) while the more traditional cultures surrounding them have not had time to catch up. It’s not that they ‘have’ to catch up, or even that they have to see themselves as needing to change in any way. The point is that I thrive in my urban community and support its values , but would wither away in a conservative environment, and will do my upmost to contribute to widening the intellectual gulf between what my community stands for and what MAGA stands for. And I urge MAGA supporters and social conservatives in general to do everything they can to further the direction they believe they need to go in. Obviously this will go most smoothly if both sides eventually give up the idea that one side must be ‘ winning’ and the other ‘losing’.

I want to enjoy my community and also look forward to travelling to the hinterlands from time to time so I can be a tourist taking in their exotic ways, like visiting an Amish village.

I'm not saying we should separate speech and consequence, where one is protected and the other isn't. I'm saying that the issue here doesn't seem to fit neatly into illocution/prolocution. It isn't how hate speech is received by individuals that is at issue. Rather the real danger, worthy of abridging free speech, are the consequences of a social environment where here speech is allowed to flourish, and especially encouraged by influential voices.

This is not reflected in the shooter example.

Oh, Ok.

Analysis in terms of illocutions and perlocutions - speech and its consequences - provides a structure in which to understand the act as a whole. It's a counter to those who would say that we must protect the right to express oneself, even if the consequences are unacceptable. So it seems we agree in not accepting that the speech and its consequences are separable, at least for the purposes of ascribing complicity.

This is the argument now being put by sections of the commentariat on the right; that the left is complicit in violence that purportedly resulted from what they have said. It's curiously parallel to earlier arguments put by sections of the commentariat on the left, that and that is the apparent target of the OP. The shoe seems to have changed foot.

My problem with hate speech laws is based on just what I see here in the United States. It isn't a "hate speech law vs unlimited free speech" problem. It's a problem of using "hate speech" as a lever (or hammer) against individuals or groups who have offended others, or expressed unacceptable political opinions. Being offended by speech is not the same as being injured by speech. There should be little to no protection against being offended.

The problem of unambiguously hateful speech (as opposed to offensive speech) is that it inflames other people and can lead to harmful, injurious behavior. Keep it up long enough and it will lead to harmful, injurious results.

So hate speech laws are appropriate for unambiguously hateful speech. It's ambiguously hateful, offensive, annoying speech where hate speech laws are inappropriate.

My problem with hate speech laws is based on just what I see here in the United States. — BC

Well, yes, and the issue there is the same as elsewhere - finding a balance between being able to express an opinion while not being permitted to incite or induce violence. Looking at other jurisdictions might show that the approach in the US, expressed hereabouts as a naïve acceptance of a refusal to forbid any speech, is fraught with inconsistency. We must acknowledge the capacity of speech to injure, beyond mere offence.

Both of you raise well reasoned objections to my post about hate speech which I have referred to the Department of Opinions to be Reconsidered. In the meantime, I'll try to avoid hate.

Hey.

There was a time when we held ourselves to a higher standard.

It was a while ago.

Bitter Crank?

Seriously though, do I need to spell it out?

Has everyone forgotten?

↪Roke Let us take an example:

"Kill all the white people!"

Substitute any group you wish. Suppose a person with influence yells that to their people wanting an answer for their problems.

Is that free speech?

If so then "free speech" is the right to say whatever you want to say even if it results in death.


YES

You have to draw a line somewhere.

Speech turns out to be a wise place to draw it.

We all agreed. The world worked.

So you want to be spared:

Faggot

Nigger

Is it what you wanted?

So you want to be spared: — Roke

If you do not quote or press the reply button, it is very hard to follow who you are replying to.

Why are liberal communities composed of sheep but your community isn’t? — Joshs

Sheep are all over the place for sure. The point was about the media. The shepherd. The media (when they don’t cave) will always cheerlead for the Dems. That’s the only reason Biden made it all the way to July’s debate - the media told us (sheep) he was fit. But now that the news media is losing credibility for some people, (because of things like Biden making it to July for instance) they aren’t going to be as effective anymore.

AOC just said on the floor of the Senate: “His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans – far from ‘working tirelessly to promote unity’.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/aoc-defends-her-vote-against-165240740.html

Few things to make clear:

1. Although it should be needless to say, AOC and all Americans have a right to say and think every word of what AOC just said. That is “a straightforward matter,” at least it should be. We not only agree no one should be shot for saying things like this quote, but that no law can abridge saying it in any way.

Right? We all have to agree with that - it just basically restates the 1st Amendment.

2. In the protected quote, AOC says Kirk is ignorant, seeking not unity, but to disenfranchise. Ok, maybe so. But point 2 here is that, now AOC has engaged in debate. This second point is the reason for free speech, protected in point 1 above. We protect debate (political) speech no matter what, so that we each get to seek a hearing of exactly what we think. AOC’s constituents elected her to say what she thinks, and she disagrees strongly with Kirk, saying he was “ignorant” for instance. (Astute…)

3. Others get to agree or disagree, or debate, with AOC. It’s never one sided.

All three are important. The principle on 1, and the content exchanged in 2 and 3. That’s the bedrock foundation of our political system.

“Hate speech” is a notion for those who can’t or just won’t debate. Or those who bring a gun or a protest slogan and a bullhorn to a conversation….

Pam Bondi is an idiot. She’ll be gone in the next few months, unless she gets some kind of win soon.

We are not one country now — Joshs

We should keep metaphors and facts clear. Kimmel wasn’t silenced by the government, for instance, he was fired by his wimpy, cowardly boss, ABC/Disney. ABC has been doing it for years now.

If you say “we are not one country” is that a helpful rhetorical tactic? Towards what goal?

North, south, east coast, west coast, city, farm, black, white, little Italy, china town, rich/poor - the American system survived a massive civil war. We survived the 1960s and the murder if so many politicians, and 2020 elections and a maga insurrection. Nothing really new about a free nation’s people at odds with their own unity.

I don’t think the metaphor that “we are not one country” helps. We are more than one country. For many, this is a question of whether we are one family or not. I think agreeable conversations can exist. Ask Van Jones.

We should learn something from the Kirk shooting, and together, turn over a new leaf.

But most of us probably won’t do either one.

Trump’s success isn’t due to urban America getting anything ‘wrong’, any more than Erdogan’s or Orban’s or Le Pen’s or Nigel Farage’s success is due to urbanites in those countries making some mistake of political calculation. — Joshs

I wouldn’t compare what is happening in America to what is happening in any other contemporary of America. I wouldn’t do that in 1780, 1880, 1980 or now. America is different than those other places. These generalizations of yours are not what I was saying.

Trump’s success is because people in the cities, in the suburbs, on the farms, of every economic class, of all types of sexual preference, in every color, Hispanic, Native American, etc, etc, etc - so many agree. Basic street facts, like who is male, and who is the bully, and who needs help, and who is full of shit all of the time (Crockett) - they can’t be hidden forever. Media is losing and the Dems are losing with them.

And what is lost? The argument. So now, having lost control of the debate, as a last attempt, we accuse our enemies of “hate speech”. The very notion of government enforced “hate speech” and “hate crimes” strangle debate and free speech. Or we shoot them the debaters in the neck.

Hate speech - what a shame. It’s embarrassing really. So hypocritical too. It’s only hate speech when you hate it, and when you hate something, where is the hate??? Not in the speech.

Just win the fucking debates. Try that - like AOC is trying to win about the resolution for Kirk, with her insights and wisdom.

being able to express an opinion while not being permitted to incite or induce violence. Looking at other jurisdictions might show that the approach in the US, expressed hereabouts as a naïve acceptance of a refusal to forbid any speech, is fraught with inconsistency. We must acknowledge the capacity of speech to injure, beyond mere offence. — Banno

The capacity of speech to injure, or the capacity of speech to lead to injury? How can speech injure?

In a political context, like on the Senate floor or in a debate among adults, what exactly does “capacity of speech to injure” mean? What’s an example of political speech that, by simply speaking, another person is injured?

Conspiracy can be speech that leads to injury (as opposed to speech that causes injury). But a discussion about who is more hateful, a trans activist towards Charlie Kirk or vice versa, no matter what is said between them, cannot be speech that leads to injury. It is not possible. It’s just opinion and belief and facts analyzed and arguments tested - nothing for the government to regulate at all.

The distinction of a perlocution does not supplant and replace the judgment of the listener and her decisions to act, and it is only these acts that can cause harm - such actions happen after the debate stops. While the debate goes on, before anyone gets shot, illocution and perlocution are up for discussion, and have nothing to do with the “capacity of speech to injure.”

Inciting or “inducing” violence needs to be fairly clear, and is very contextual. Charlie would never meet the criteria for incitement. Neither would Kimmel or Colbert.

People who hear ideas and then decide to shoot people or destroy property, or commit some other crime, have to be the ones held responsible first and foremost. That’s not speech leading to harm. That’s assholes, or criminals fully responsible for being assholes and criminals no matter what speech they heard or who said it. What adult thinks otherwise? Political speech and debate and opinion and discussion and rallies - have nothing to do with “the capacity of speech to injure”

Legally defined and enforced “hate speech” adds nothing beneficial to a society that believes in free speech. I can handle hearing any idea whatsoever, if it is a discussion, and I get to respond. That’s the political environment the US constitution built. “Hate” in a speech is just more content.

Dude. You might want to be more precise and express in the points you are trying to make.

Dude. You might want to be more precise and express in the points you are trying to make. — Fire Ologist

He's saying (or rather asking) what one who is adamant about hate speech laws (and I suppose general profanity including resulting profanity laws, which do exist in many American municipalities) really wants to prevent, and if that includes "dehumanizing words" that have a tendency to inflict emotional discomfort or safety concerns toward the individual. Which on paper, should be silly. Yet apparently, is not...

It's not hard to imagine being the only black guy in a room of strangers where everyone seems to be playing some sort of "game" with you or is otherwise just messing with you, not even for fun but with a deadpan expression. You don't know what that means. You don't know what's going on in their head. But I'll bet you you'd always have your eye on the nearest exit if so. In some contexts, speech is used as a form of intimidation. A very effective one at that.

Weak people need to constantly feed on those weaker than them to maintain a sense of identity, to feed their constantly fleeting delusion of control over this world and thus their own life. And if you're a minority, or shorter or smaller, at least in a given situation or context, you're the obligatory victim. They would literally lose their mind, without such. They wouldn't be caught dead on a level playing field. They will avoid such at any and all cost all while ignoring how blatantly shameful and cowardly their actions are, their brains are so pickled by their own ego, mired in inhumanity, it simply doesn't register. These so-called "people", are no longer people, but a disease; a blight on our society that must be removed at all cost if humanity is to survive. The first step is controlling their reproduction. But.. a coward is ultimately a liar. And without free speech, they would be silent, blending in, trying to appear like the rest of us sane, actual human beings. This would complicate efforts toward their eradication exponentially. Therefore, free speech must remain. Gentleman, to a better future for all..

How can speech injure? — Fire Ologist

q.v.