It’s just so tiresome. — Fire Ologist

I agree. Stalin is not a meme in USA culture, but was far worse in many a way, at least when it comes to sheer number of deaths. And the gulags weren't kinder than the Nazi concentration camps. And other more recent examples abound.

Please do. — Fire Ologist

To my knowledge, the UN defines hate speech as "speech that demeans or promotes violence against groups based on attributes like religion, race, ethnicity, gender, or other identity factors". The "demeans" part is too foggy to my liking; I'd much prefer "dehumanizes". And "promotes violence" I would hope is self explanatory. Quite famously by now, the Jews before world war two were first dehumanized via speech, with promoted violence against them following suit. So too were the Gypsies (about 1 million of them died too by the end of the war). The same occurred in Bosnia, in Rwanda, more recently in a place where to merely express humanitarian disapproval with mass starvation and the like is to be called Anti-Semitic and worse, with political consequences galore for many. Many are being silenced against speaking up for humanitarian ideals (and last I heard, Christ was quite the humanitarian person - as are the many humanitarian Jews now arrested for speaking their minds. As are many an atheist, and so on). And to be frank, I too now self censure myself in this political environment, just sitting on the fence with my mouth such watching what's unfolding.

So I'll go back to hypotheticals, this being a philosophy forum. If a group of people A scream out in solidarity while gaily dancing, "Death to all [people of your ethnicity]" such that group A greatly outnumbers the group to which their chanting "death to", those who claim this has no bearing on a preparation for physical violence have both a lot to evidence and a lot of history to refute.

I'm glad we do agree the Hitler was no angel. With this tinny little background given, I will contend that what makes Hitler guilty of mass murder and genocide is exactly the hate speech he engaged in. First paving the way for what eventually happened and then, or course, ordering the events.

Do you have a different explanation for why Hitler is morally culpable for unjust deaths?

Again, he never did anything else but speak.

But if all conservatives must be racist sexist pigs, what’s the point of asking their opinion on anything anyway? Right? — Fire Ologist

Right. Same can be said on behalf of liberals. BTW, never saw a bumper sticker saying "conservatives suck". I've however seen plenty saying "liberals suck", neighbors included. Myself, I'm technically more of an independent - but, at least where I'm from, the hatred of the right toward the left far outweighs the hatred, if any (which is not the same as disapproval) I've personally encountered in the other direction.

The left and the right can both be tyrannical, — Fire Ologist

Amen to that. You have Stalin (left), you have Hitler (right) and you have many another . My problem isn't with political sides and their differing views on how to improve society. Or at least I don't take one side and avoid the other in a tribalism mindset. My problem is with tyranny period. And when a majority of people in a society scream out "death to those we don't like the smell of" or some such, that is tyranny.

Trump in his own way is just as bad as Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama and Biden when it comes to this bullshit. — Fire Ologist

Of course. But only Trump is on record for inciting violence during his rallies.

Question is what, and are the checks and balances in place. I wasn’t afraid with Obama and Biden, and I’m not afraid with Trump. — Fire Ologist

Agreed with the first part. Pretty certain that the checks and balances in place pertain to the very community we're living in, vis a vis the community's rejection of political violence. Wherever you stand, Jan. 6th was about political violence. And all those currently in political power don't give a damn. Trump has joked about serving a third term. If this were to be (not beyond all possibility, for laws, as we know, can be changed more rapidly by authoritarian personalities and powers than by those who at least pretend to respect democratic values before the wide public), then the USA will become about as democratic as current Russia is. Putin too is an elected president, don't you know. "Afraid" might be overstating it, but I do find quite a lot to be concerned about.

Those who have no problem with speech that dehumanizes others and incites violence against them pretty much guarantee that such speech proliferates. And when it does, non-Orwellian understood tyranny follows. (The tyranny of the good, or the tyranny of truth, would be a blatant example of Orwellianized forms of the word.)

Nor sure how coherent my post is, or how well it comes through. But its late for me and I'm tired. So I'll stop short and leave it as it is. Hope I've answered at least most questions you've had.

But you can lie and say I turned off Electrical Grid B to an electrician, perhaps in theory even just walking by without being employed by the company, and an electrician goes to work on it and gets killed. That's illegal. Or, you can stand by a bridge you know is dilapidated and cover leaves over it and if a person asks if it's safe, you can say "Sure", and they are also killed. That's quasi-legal, simply because no one can prove you did anything. So, no, this idea that speech cannot lead to real human death, possibly mass causality has already been legally codified. That ship has sailed, mate. So, that realization hitting you (or anyone who was ignorant of such) aside. What are you truly hoping to proliferate?

Here’s a chance to prove your case. Let’s see you injure me with words.

It’s just so tiresome.
— Fire Ologist

I agree. — javra

Then why did you ask me if I think Hitler was a bad guy? Is it because I’m a conservative republican - is that why you needed me to confess my true feelings for Hitler?

Hitler was a national socialist. He seems to me to have much more in common with the tactics and goals of the left (state control and power, hating groups of people like republicans, censorship and cancellation/extermination) than with conservatives. But you had to ask me anyway. And you didn’t say anything about my answer.

So since you didn’t respond to my answer to your question, I don’t know whether you believe me or not. Most left leaning people don’t believe conservatives when they say they are not racist. That’s what they say to my face. The left can’t imagine it is coherent to want a strong border and to like Mexico. They think we are liars, and they think they know our true feelings. Which is prejudice and bigotry against conservatism, and unobservant. And just so wrong. About me. And there are millions of black, gay, women repubs - race is just not important at all to conservatism. The vast, vast majority of us know that Hitler is evil. Such a demeaning question. Maybe you didn’t mean it that way, but if Hitler isn’t morally culpable for unjust deaths, nothing makes any sense at all.

Now you never addressed my question:

Question for you (that we should all know the answer to): is a black, lesbian voting against her own interests by default, if she votes republican? — Fire Ologist

You want to answer that?

But back to hate speech laws…let’s look at the text you provided and I’ll give you my opinion (which is a form of speech called political that should be protected):

hate speech as "speech that demeans or promotes violence against groups based on attributes like religion, race, ethnicity, gender, or other identity factors". — javra

“Demeans” is too vague. Get it out. “I don’t think your shoes go with that outfit” is demeaning to some, and sometimes the facts are embarrassing and demeaning. What is demeaning may bring moral approbation, but cannot equitably bring legal punishment. It’s too vague. So “demeans” has to be taken out (which you seem to agree).

“Promotes violence” is too vague. “Promotes” is in the eye of the beholder, and “violence” is too often used metaphorically. The phrase “buy a gun” promotes violence against squirrels and deer. The phrase “fight” meaning resist politically can be said to promote an insurrection, or maybe just voting and debating. The phrase “beat the Democrats” or “whip the republicans” speak for themselves. Some people are so frail, words alone are the violence. That is a psychological problem or maturity problem for them, not the basis of a law limiting political speech. The phrase “dog-whistle” scares me and makes me fear for my life and must be stopped as hateful. Such bullshit. Get “promotes violence” out of the law too. It’s too “Minority Report” and “thought police” for me to enforce fairly, and I am a a fair guy.

Promoting violence is already called “incitement to riot” or “conspiracy to commit a crime” - we already have laws and don’t need to find anyone demeaned or from a favored or “at risk” group in order to enforce these laws. Being mean and saying you wish others were dead is terrible, but not something I want or need the government picking and choosing to enforce this way and that way - what a total mess that would be. Like the UN is a total contradictory mess most of the time.

“Other identity factors?” Do these need to be explicit by the perpetrator of the “hate speech” - does he need to say them, or can some jury define the identity of who was being bullied? If the latter, if hatred of some group can be inferred and need not be expressly spoken by the hater, then “other identity factors” means anyone can make a case about a hate crime about anything. America, the ones who first implemented “freedom of speech”, has too much common sense to delude ourselves that any good will come from a hate speech law. Except for left leaning Americans, who for some reason wish Trump had “hate speech” laws on the books at his disposal.

It will never pass, unless enough republicans are silenced or shot.

"Death to all [people of your ethnicity]" such that group A greatly outnumbers the group to which their chanting "death to", — javra

Sounds like a free Palestine, or BLM. rally. Wasn’t there chanting about killing all pigs, meaning cops? But the chanting part, we have to allow.

Don’t you think we can deal with terrible people chanting by simply countering with more speech? Like by chanting “stop being assholes” or “wanting death means you are too stupid to debate” or something? Make some posters? Hate speech might better be defined as “a loud display of ignorance for all to hear.”

The problem is the assaults and the destruction of property and the killing during these peaceful protests. Not the language that is supposed to be behind them.

I too now self censure myself in this political environment, just sitting on the fence with my mouth such watching what's unfolding. — javra

That is what most repubs have been doing for 30 plus years. Fearing cancelation for being racist and sexist because you think male and man are basically only biological terms and “he” points out anyone born with a penis. Total self-censorship of that view in the average public square. But that got everyone nowhere. And it led to a Trump victory despite all of the felony convictions and hatefulness he breeds.

Trump happened because conservatives can no longer stand watching what has unfolded.

Hate speech laws are all really about suppressing conservative speech, because everyone knows conservatives hate so many groups of people. Right?

You cannot censor thought. Let the thoughts come out so we can debate with the issues and show people how stupid their thoughts are. Otherwise we breed reactionaries and radicals in their mom’s basements.

Hate speech laws are dumb. I hate the idea.

Then why did you ask me if I think Hitler was a bad guy? Is it because I’m a conservative republican - is that why you needed me to confess my true feelings for Hitler?

Hitler was a national socialist. He seems to me to have much more in common with the tactics and goals of the left (state control and power, hating groups of people like republicans, censorship and cancellation/extermination) than with conservatives. But you had to ask me anyway. And you didn’t say anything about my answer. — Fire Ologist

First off, because I’ve talked to more than one person who affirms he wasn’t. And, with them being national socialists, they quite stringently affirm themselves and the “national socialism” they uphold to be thoroughly right and conservative – abhorring everything about the left. And, as a reminder, I don’t know you. I’m not supposed to be telepathic, am I? You certainly don’t evidence yourself to be in what you reply.

But far more importantly than this, I repeatedly asked you what makes Hitler so if not his very speech. Something you have not yet addressed, and I’d very much like to hear your comments on.

As far as not saying anything about your answer, what on Earth was this:

I'm glad we do agree the Hitler was no angel. With this tinny little background given, I will contend that what makes Hitler guilty of mass murder and genocide is exactly the hate speech he engaged in. First paving the way for what eventually happened and then, or course, ordering the events.

Do you have a different explanation for why Hitler is morally culpable for unjust deaths?

Again, he never did anything else but speak. — javra

Question for you (that we should all know the answer to): is a black, lesbian voting against her own interests by default, if she votes republican? — Fire Ologist

You want to answer that? — Fire Ologist

(if we "all should know the answer to" then wasn't the question rhetorical? All the same:) Obviously not. For starters, it would all depend on what her interests are, what she prioritizes politically, and so forth. Is that answered clearly enough?

I too now self censure myself in this political environment, just sitting on the fence with my mouth such watching what's unfolding. — javra


That is what most repubs have been doing for 30 plus years. Fearing cancelation for being racist and sexist because you think male and man are basically only biological terms and “he” points out anyone born with a penis. — Fire Ologist

You got me curious. I've mentioned my self-cencorship of humanitarian ideals, like the wrongs of mass starvation. As to thinking the gender always perfectly fits biological sex, I've been around for over 30 years and have been hearing this throughout - never once hearing a rebuttle of "you're racist and sexist" because you think this. And I live in "liberal" California. But, since you've brought this up, many of these same individuals I've so far talked to want to deny that over 1% (over 1 in every hundred) humans are birthed intersexed (with mixed genitalia) - neither male nor female. And that's a pretty significant percentage. But other than this issue of sex and gender, which I"m not yet buying, what else has folk such as Rush Limbaugh, etc, been censored from saying?

As far as not saying anything about your answer, what on Earth was this:

I'm glad we do agree the Hitler was no angel. With this tinny little background given, I will contend that what makes Hitler guilty of mass murder and genocide is exactly the hate speech he engaged in. First paving the way for what eventually happened and then, or course, ordering the events.

Do you have a different explanation for why Hitler is morally culpable for unjust deaths?

Again, he never did anything else but speak.
— javra — javra

Ok, my bad. I skimmed that part and must have missed it that you are glad we agree. I’m glad too.

But all speech is not political speech. When Hitler was campaigning and running for office and shouting at some pulpit, he was engaged in political speech and we should protect that type of free speech for all opinions. We get to debate every single idea we can think of.

But then Hitler became Chancellor, and at that point his speech was commands and orders, and enforcement of law, and setting of policy - not debate. These types of speech are heavily regulated and will always have to be. Checks and balances. That’s why “hate speech” laws are dangerous, because they give enforcement power to the government regarding anyone’s stupid opinion. And they allow the Furor to arrest those who say things he doesn’t like.

We need to let Hitler speak his mind, so we can know not to elect him and we can know what arguments to make to defeat his stupid ideology of hate (like the lefts stupid ideology of identity power struggles).

We don’t use the government to regulate political speech. That’s what Hitler did. He didn’t just speak. He did many things besides speak.

Not all speech is political. When I say “hey, watch out for that bus”. I’m not expressing a political opinion. Political opinions and debate have to be protected. When Hitler said “build that concentration camp and bomb Stalingrad” he wasn’t just speaking - he was enacting policy and committing murder like a maniac. If a cop says “drop that weapon” he isn’t offering suggestion - you better fall in line or get ready for a fight.

I find it confused for you to say that “he never did anything else but speak.” This is the best way I can address you asking me how Hitler, who you say only used speech, was culpable for so many unjust deaths. Not all speech is political. So just because he used words to command his followers, he did much more than political speech.

the gender always perfectly fits biological sex, I've been around for over 30 years and have been hearing this throughout - never once hearing a rebuttle of "you're racist and sexist" because you think this. — javra

Philly’s DA, Larry Krasner, the chief law enforcement guy, just said at a town hall how republican policies are racist and sexist. First of all, who really cares, because the left’s policies are racist and sexist too. Race a sex issues are getting so old. But how about whether the policies are effective at achieving some sort of goal? Repubs or Dems effective policy makers? How about that discussion.

A despicable man like Trump was elected anyway because too many people are fed up with such blind stupidity.

And if the repubs start attacking free speech from the left, the repubs will get smacked by the conservatives. We don’t like government. Trump is liked because he isn’t a creature of politics.

Notice I didn’t just say “I like Trump because…”. I Used the passive voice “Trump is liked because….” This is my conditioning, by our left leaning media and DEI loving culture. Saying “I like Trump” can get you shot or fired. Certainly gets you hated.

Because I wonder if Trump thinks Hitler is culpable for murder? Hmmm… good question. How could anyone actually like Trump? He must sympathize with Hitler. Right?

Your tonality to what I've said in my previous posts makes me presume you have a good deal of resentment toward everything that is not conservative. Such as, for one example, your suggestion that fascistic mentality, which we both dislike for its authoritarianism, has nothing to do with conservatism or the political right - being instead a leftist leaning mindset.

This mindset, I will acknowledge, being relatively new to me. If you feel like commenting, and if "conservatism" to you basically means the preservation of traditional values, do you then take all traditional values which are to be preserved to be non-authoritarian? (I've, for one example, grown up learning in church that the husband is the metaphorical head of the family and the women is the metaphorically subservient body - which must obey the head without question if things are to be in order. So I so far find this to be a traditional value in western culture. And I don't deem it an egalitarian, hence non-authoritarian, mindset, at least as regards the interaction between the sexes. Please do correct me if you think I'm wrong.)

As to:

But then Hitler became Chancellor, and at that point his speech was commands and orders, and enforcement of law, and setting of policy - not debate. — Fire Ologist

Is not "death to [x]" of itself a command - one that intends to bring about a certain order to states of affairs via speech? If the weakest of us all gives the strongest amongst us an order, does it signify anything in terms of what those spoken to do? As to enforcing laws, laws are nothing but words - verbal or written - that don't mean squat in practical terms without any physical enforcement. Sometime by a government that is intended to be of a people, for a people, and by a people. Not that I'm an expert on Hitler, but can anyone cite instances where Hitler physically enforced the laws that were put in place? If not, they were again just words. And the speech of politicians is one aspect of what political speech is. There need not be a debate involved.

At any rate, thanks for your previous answer.

But how about whether the policies are effective at achieving some sort of goal? Repubs or Dems effective policy makers? How about that discussion. — Fire Ologist

That would be quite good, but it would be a different discussion that the merits/demerits of hate speech and the dangers/benefits of its being freely allowed without any so called "political correctness" getting in the way.

Here's just one example: When it comes to economy, I am all for capitalism when it stand up to its ideal of meritocracy: each benefiting economically based on their earnest deserve (rather than based on the goal of maximizing corruption so as to make the biggest buck). And, I am likewise for the existence of an economic social net to protect from devastating accidental events which can befall us all - welfare as its typically called - seeing absolutely no entailed contradiction between the two. Does that make me a conservative Republican, a liberal Democrat ... this stringent dichotomy is a bit bipolar for me. To me the discussion should not be about either or but about discussion what is best for one and all both in the short term and long term. But again, this would greatly deviate from the issue of hate speech and its intersection with free speech.

Because I wonder if Trump thinks Hitler is culpable for murder? Hmmm… good question. How could anyone actually like Trump? He must sympathize with Hitler. Right? — Fire Ologist

This being an example of the apparent deep resentment I've previously mentioned. No, not right. Does that then make Trump, the person who recently announced that it should be illegal for news outlets to speak negatively of him, not of an authoritarian mindset?

have a good deal of resentment toward everything that is not conservative. — javra

I see where you are coming from about my tone. But it’s not resentment. It’s frustration. It’s tiresome convincing people that I don’t like Hitler, or that I don’t secretly like oppressing women or something. Because there is no way to satisfy any request for such proof. Only a confession will do. And the debate on the issues is over before it started. Conservatives have let themselves be framed as racist sexist pigs for so long it’s a foregone conclusion. It’s frustrating to deal with that in good faith.

But the actual progressive views and policies, some of them make total sense. No resentment from me when someone else has a better view. I don’t write off anyone because of their politics. I answered your question about Hitler. I try to show I am arguing in good faith, but, because I am clearly not progressive, usually political conversations stay around Hitler and Nazis and how racist I must be. Same for all conservatives. Same since the 1980’s.

Trump, the person who recently announced that it should be illegal for news outlets to speak negatively of him, not of an authoritarian mindset? — javra

So let’s be precise. Is Trump drafting legislation to make it illegal for the news to speak negatively of him? Because that would be stupid, and sounds like a dictator. The shit that comes out of his mouth sometimes. But I am sure such legislation can’t and won’t happen. Biden went so far as to set up the Disinformation Governance Board or something - much scarier to me, not because it was Biden, but because it had an enforcement structure to it, as opposed to crap Trump says.

Trump is not merely a chief executive officer enforcing laws and implementing policies. As you know I’m sure, every word he says does not cause there to be a new policy. People do resist the all powerful president when he’s an idiot. That’s how the checks and balances work. But He is still a politician, and a citizen, and gets to speak his mind, even when it is a stupid idea that goes against a free press. He has some dictatorial ideas for sure. That won’t lead to policy imposed on the public though. Obama and Biden deported a lot of illegal immigrants you know. Trump isn’t really a dictator.

There were people who said electing George W. Bush was going to be the end of democracy, that he wanted to allow women be raped, etc. But no president in my lifetime has been pilloried as badly as Trump. So if he gets overly sensitive and says “it should be illegal to make fun of me” I get it. But I’m sure we’ll see how that doesn’t go anywhere at all.

When it comes to economy, I am all for capitalism when it stand up to its ideal of meritocracy: each benefiting economically based on their earnest deserve (rather than based on the goal of maximizing corruption so as to make the biggest buck). And, I am likewise for the existence of an economic social net to protect from devastating accidental events which can befall us all - welfare as its typically called - seeing absolutely no entailed contradiction between the two. Does that make me a conservative Republican, a liberal Democrat ... this stringent dichotomy is a bit bipolar for me. To me the discussion should not be about either or but about discussion what is best — javra

Basically full agreement on all points here. You sound conservative to me, no contradiction, but like you implied, who really cares about the label - the issue is what is best. (Plus I wouldn’t wish the disparaging title “conservative” on anyone unwillingly).

So let me show you some nuances from my perspective on what we basically agree, to make a point.
Merit based hiring drawing from a pool of all worthy applicants regardless of race, creed, sex, etc. Total agreement. It makes sense for there to be laws on the books to foster fair, merit based hiring practices. Many are good laws, some are too vague and misused, some are bad - needs to evolve and continue being debated, and tested in court, but call it liberal or call it conservative — merit based hiring is good, and many entities need to be regulated to keep it that way.

But DEI in corporations through the HR department - to avoid employment law issues - that is mostly crap and counterproductive. All it does is confuse common decency and humble respect owed between all people, by favoring one group and disfavoring another group. All it does is promote reverse racism and sexism. It’s been terrible policy. It has led to so much abuse. It has little to actually do with merit. It rewards bad behavior more often than it helps anyone.

So if someone thinks I am conservative, and hears me saying DEI is crap, they will assume I am racist and sexist, and will think I’m lying about merit based hiring for all races and sexes. Usually we don’t get past whether Hitler would have been in favor of DEI or not.

I also agree with welfare and Medicare and a net for unfortunate circumstances. But It’s the same on every issue though. For me to suggest some sort of parameter for how to distribute welfare, because I’m conservative, it is really just me showing how I don’t care about all black, hispanic and disabled people. If I suggest “no welfare for that” someone will say “but that person is black, so you are just hating black people again.” You see how it works?

The policy is always secondary to identity politics, and conservatives have the same identity as Hitler.

So let’s jump to hate speech legislation. I think it’s too vague and too impossible to enforce, and will lead to drastically inequitable outcomes, and will certainly be abused by politicians to silence their opposition. So hate speech legislation is crap. But because I am a conservative, what I must really mean is that I am okay with people hating trans, or gay, or immigrants. I don’t get to pass Go on that issue. I am a Nazi for some reason again because “hate speech legislation” is bad policy.

Or, like all republican politicians have to do, I have to answer for spreading hate all of the time if I want to have a policy discussion.

if "conservatism" to you basically means the preservation of traditional values, do you then take all traditional values which are to be preserved to be non-authoritarian? (I've, for one example, grown up learning in church that the husband is the metaphorical head of the family and the women is the metaphorically subservient body - which must obey the head without question if things are to be in order. So I so far find this to be a traditional value in western culture. And I don't deem it an egalitarian, hence non-authoritarian, mindset, at least as regards the interaction between the sexes. Please do correct me if you think I'm wrong.) — javra

So, lots to unpack. But first, I don’t see this as a political question. And that is important to understand. If it is not a political issue, then it cannot lead to any government policy. So the outcome of any debate about an authoritarian tradition like men heading the family and wives being subservient, doesn’t really matter in the public sphere. It’s for each family to figure out for themselves. The dynamics of a marriage between husband and wife is more a psychological discussion, sociology discussion, anthropology discussion, and a religious tradition conversation (Jewish, Christian, Islam all have opinions on this too). But it is not a political tradition. Not for at least 100 years.

So if you are asking me how I think government should insert itself into such a debate with policy (like a rule of thumb type law about how to beat your wife, or voting rights for women), I’d say the government has to treat all adults, men and women, equally and can make no law about the inner dynamics of a family. (And wife beating is abhorrent which should be needless to say, but again, I am a republican so I have to remind people that I don’t like wife beating). It was always wrong in the US for there to be slavery, and always wrong for women not to have the vote. We all used to be apes that had no need for governing. We’ve come a long way finally for women.

Women voting is fairly new, and one of the great contributions of progressive thinkers. It took too long for it to become policy.

But if you are just asking me, as a conservative, what do I think about “man as head of the household, and wife as subservient to her husband”? I like the way My Big Fat Greek Wedding put it: “The man is the head of the family, but the woman in the neck, and she can turn the head whichever way she wants.” This was said by the wife. So I try to seek the wisdom in the traditions that brought us to today, and, in this case, the wisdom handed down from both my mother and my father, but I live in the world I live in today. Most women hear “wife to be subservient” and they think “you just keep telling yourself that.” And the family goes on just fine.

Lastly, yes that is an authoritarian tradition. It has the word subservient in the very tradition. But I am not oppressed by the rules I voluntarily submit to. Sometimes the certainty of law and authority set you free. Placing a man at the head of the family can be a burden and duty for the man, and liberation for the wife. It’s not a simple dynamic here that necessarily enslaves one while making a master of the other. And politically, the husband and wife must be treated absolutely as equals. Just like every other adult citizen.

I think modern society has a diseased view of authority, tradition and things like dogma. They seem unavoidable to me, and in need of integration into our lives, not mere resistance. We resist these things in adolescence, and we should question everything, but that is before we know some realities must be humbly accepted at times. We think for ourselves to determine which authority is good and right, and when to follow, and when to resist - but we also have to make our choices and act, and we don’t get to avoid the existence of authority over us in our actions. Facts are dictators. Death is a tyrant. Taxes must be paid, or prison awaits. At times, someone has to represent the family, or someone has to be held responsible for the family, whether it be the man or the wife. Religion, not the government, provides a tradition that helps people who ask what to do determine for themselves how the family dynamics work. I would not just sua sponte tell anyone they were wrong or what to do - but if they ask, I’d say there is wisdom in picking a head to the family at times, and a wisdom to making that head the man.

There was a lot said in reply with a good deal of it very well received. A question though:

Can the issue of hate speech be addressed without embarking on perceived issues of political victimization? (e.g. the victimization of conservatives by the left and the victimization of liberals by the right)

As a relative independent, I could, for example, have spent time in addressing how this inference is ill-suited, given that, to my knowledge, the overwhelming majority were peaceful supporters of humanitarian ideals:

"Death to all [people of your ethnicity]" such that group A greatly outnumbers the group to which their chanting "death to", — javra


Sounds like a free Palestine, or BLM. rally. Wasn’t there chanting about killing all pigs, meaning cops? — Fire Ologist

But instead I did my best to stick to the issue of this thread.

If not, then I won’t continue in the discussion. It will be purely political rather than in any way philosophical, without any foreseeable conclusion, and I don’t have the free time for it. BTW, for over the past 30 years, my immediate family, a good deal of my friends and acquaintances, and most of my work colleges have been far more conservative than I am. My father, for example, listened to Rush Limbaugh on an almost daily basis. And the stuff I’ve heard from them regarding the left, as I previously mentioned, has often times been quite hateful in what I took to be unjust ways—sometimes a hell of a lot more than others (this without hearing anything alike in turn from the left toward the right). Shit, a small portion of these have even welcomed me into their house with a Nazi salute or else championed fascism (and Hitler) while visiting my place (apparently thinking I’d be of the same mindset). This to me being facts I’ve personally lived through. So I’m not one to scapegoat political victimization onto one political party alone. I like and endorse democratic values and diversity which is ideally unified by these very same ideals. Yes, there are extremists on both poles of politics, but the loudmouthed extremists do not represent the majority on either side, at least not by my current appraisals.

Otherwise, here’s what I gather we currently agree upon (feel free to disagree if not correct):

- Hate speech—when interpreted in the spirit of what the UN intended, this being the spoken prelude to active genocides—is bad/immoral/wrong.
- As it currently stands, hate speech is very poorly defined, so much so that were there to be laws against hate speech in the US these laws could easily enough become utterly corrupt—at the very least in preventing freedom of speech (free speech being a very good thing to have in a functioning democracy, and utterly necessary to it).
- There should be some form of checks and balances within society to mitigate the legally allowed hate speech that might arise.

I’d like to further discuss the details of this, but first I’ll wait for your reply.

-----------

p.s.

I think modern society has a diseased view of authority, tradition and things like dogma. They seem unavoidable to me, and in need of integration into our lives, not mere resistance. — Fire Ologist

In this, I want to reinforce that we both acknowledge the utter disconnect between authority and authoritarianism. One goes to the doctor precisely because the doctor has authority in realms one does not. This, however, has nothing to do with the given doctor being either an egalitarian or else an authoritarian in his/her predispositions and outlooks on life.

Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas. — Attributed to Henry Thomas Buckle

Can the issue of hate speech be addressed without embarking on perceived issues of political victimization? (e.g. the victimization of conservatives by the left and the victimization of liberals by the right) — javra

It’s a great question. I think it gets to the heart of what is wrong with hate speech legislation.

The important issue here is not the victims of hate speech. It’s that we have to protect our ability to accuse our political opposition.

Libs need to be able to say repubs are scum, and vice versa. If it “victimizes them” that is their problem. We don’t want the government to be able to take away anyone’s ability to reply and respond to an accusation with their own speech. And with this principle, allowing anything and everything be said in a political context, it becomes impossible to make laws that proscribe any political statement without shredding our ability to respond to the opposition. If the opposition is helping rapists and murderers and fostering destruction, we need to be able to call them rape lovers and murdering animals, to call them out, to muster political support to do something about the raping and the murdering.

People who support hate speech laws are trying to deal with the scenario where speech is not in a political context, but it is just say, a white supremacist on the street terrorizing people who are just trying to go to a store. He is calling them every racist, sexist nasty word and truly scaring them and hurting them emotionally, making them not be able to enter the store for fear of their lives. But this can be handled many ways and laws against words or speech are disproportionately destructive to political debate to deal with this asshole.

If we make a law that curtails speech instead of making a law that curtails behavior, we simultaneously limit the ability to argue whatever needs to be said in a political arena. And the good intentions behind hate speech laws become a practical issue. A comedian makes a joke about a murderer, and murder is funny. So maybe we can make laws that limit time and place and setting, like no F-bombs in G rated movies for instance. But for any group to tell any group what words are beyond all pale, and therefore illegal, incurring punishment - that is the end of healthy political debate.

All that said, just because it should be legal to say anything at all in a political debate, doesn’t mean the politician who demonizes the opposition is an effective politician. That is up to us to vote for such a person.

We should focus laws on regulating the behavior, not the content of the speech. If someone is yelling in my ear at the top of their lungs, who cares what they are saying - the harm to my ear can be regulated as an assault. But the only harm to me is that they are saying words that I don’t like to hear - that is not harm enough to limit free political speech.

So no, I don’t think we can address the issue of hate speech without accounting for the victims of hatred. But in my experience, the one who hates is victim of his own hatred, and the one who is victim because of words is responsible for his own victimization - so to legislate against “hate speech” is utterly misguided and needlessly, pointlessly, takes a huge chunk away from our freedom.

(And not to mention, you put a law against certain speech, it will allow corrupt politicians in power to silence their opposition who is not in power. And it will never be applied accurately and fairly. I would be amazed that the UN floated such legal concept, but the UN has lots of bad ideas, and they all know their words are meaningless and cannot be enforced.)

And the stuff I’ve heard from them regarding the left, as I previously mentioned, has often times been quite hateful in what I took to be unjust ways—sometimes a hell of a lot more than others (this without hearing anything alike in turn from the left toward the right). Shit, a small portion of these have even welcomed me into their house with a Nazi salute or else championed fascism (and Hitler) while visiting — javra

The hatefulness goes both ways, so none of that surprises me. That’s human, tribal psychology. But the Nazi salute and fascism and Hitler stuff - just vile. I never ran into that in my life. I knew of people like that, but no one I knew ever thought much of such losers. It just has nothing to do with conservatism (but I’m sure I can’t convince you or anyone of that unfortunately). It’s like saying the gulag is essential to communism. It’s been essential to the way communism has always been implemented, but it’s not an essential component to the ideology.

But here we are again, taking about how conservatives are mini-Hitlers.

the loudmouthed extremists do not represent the majority on either side, at least not by my current appraisals. — javra

See, Nazis and white supremacists are not extreme republicans or conservatives. They are just fucking mutants. It’s not conservative to give a crap about race. It just isn’t. Racists give a crap about race.

A focus on race is not conservative. Maybe it used to be for some in the 1950s. But it just isn’t the topic among regular conservative people anymore. The story you told above is an anomaly, not nearly the norm for the 70 million people who vote republican. I will say race seems important to liberals. They seem to draw attention to race often in order to discuss their priority issues.

Issues like, are all republicans racists.

- Hate speech—when interpreted in the spirit of what the UN intended, this being the spoken prelude to active genocides—is bad/immoral/wrong. — javra

I agree hate speech is morally wrong even if it isn’t spoken as a prelude to murder. But if you want to make it legally wrong, it needs to be more directly connected to things like murder and legal badness. It needs to be connected to harrassment, or obstructing the right of way, or trespassing, or fraud or libel or slander and leading to physical measurable harm. It can’t just be offiensive to my ears and heart. We have to be able to say anything we want when the adults are talking about policy and laws and priorities and what is crime, and who is good for political office. The only way to protect that type of speech is absolutely - in a political debate context, absolutely anything and everything must be allowed. If it sounds like hateful shit, great, we call it hateful shit and tell the speaker now that they are done to piss off.

And instead of regulating speech, we regulate harrassment, obstructing the right of way, trespassing, fraud or libel or slander. If hate speech is a prelude to more badness, it is conspiracy to commit a crime, it is evidence of a criminal enterprise, it is incitement to criminality. So in that case, it is not the content of what is hated in the hateful speech that should matter to the government, it is the criminality of what the speech directly leads to that should matter to the government. We don’t want the current administration judging speech for criminality. Right?

I agree hate speech is morally wrong even if it isn’t spoken as a prelude to murder. But if you want to make it legally wrong, it needs to be more directly connected to things like murder and legal badness. It needs to be connected to harrassment, or obstructing the right of way, or trespassing, or fraud or libel or slander and leading to physical measurable harm. It can’t just be offiensive to my ears and heart. We have to be able to say anything we want when the adults are talking about policy and laws and priorities and what is crime, and who is good for political office. The only way to protect that type of speech is absolutely - in a political debate context, absolutely anything and everything must be allowed. If it sounds like hateful shit, great, we call it hateful shit and tell the speaker now that they are done to piss off.

And instead of regulating speech, we regulate harrassment, obstructing the right of way, trespassing, fraud or libel or slander. If hate speech is a prelude to more badness, it is conspiracy to commit a crime, it is evidence of a criminal enterprise, it is incitement to criminality. So in that case, it is not the content of what is hated in the hateful speech that should matter to the government, it is the criminality of what the speech directly leads to that should matter to the government. We don’t want the current administration judging speech for criminality. Right? — Fire Ologist

Well, I agree with this.

I also so far take it we're in agreement on the other two points I previously presented: that hate speech is ill defined and there there should be checks and balancers within society to mitigate it.

I've previously mentioned this, and I'll mention it again, maybe here more explicitly: I would rather that hate speech, however re-coined if so, be defined as speech that dehumanizes others and incites physical violence against them.

At this point, this has nothing to do with laws or other social means of mitigation but with definitions, So how do you take speech so defined? Do you yet find the definition vague?

speech that dehumanizes others and incites physical violence against them — javra

This is a great working definition for ‘hate speech.’ And it is clear enough to be an enforceable law.

But when we go to enforce this law, it looks to me like the “dehumanizes” part becomes superfluous. And the enforceable law ends up merely “speech that incites violence.”

As a test case:

In town, there is a rich white man who owns a Tesla Dealership. A woman stands on the corner and yells: “I hate all white men, those dogs need to be put down. I mean dead! Musk and Trump are murderers for cutting USAID - everyone destroy the white man’s Tesla dealership!!”
Everyone who heard the speech screams “hell yeah!!” and turns the dealership into rubble.

Silly. I’ve made some poor woman my foil.

But we are proposing as law: It shall be unlawful to make…

…speech that dehumanizes others and incites physical violence against them.

So we press charges not only against the people who sacked Tesla for destruction of property, but we charge the woman who yelled on the corner with a new Hate Speech violation.

1. The ‘white men are dogs’ speech seems to meet the ‘speech that dehumanizes others’ prong of the law;
2. The people who where incited to ‘destroy the dealership’ are brought in to satisfy the ‘incites’ prong;
3. And the actually demolished dealership meets the ‘physical violence’ prong.

It looks like, on these facts, we have a decent chance we meet all prongs of the law and we can get a conviction for hate speech.

But let’s say instead, the woman makes the same speech on the corner, and nobody gives a crap. Nothing happens, and Richie White-man goes on selling Teslas.

Can we charge the woman with the hate crime now?

Without inciting any violence, she just gave a speech. Like every other politician does. She just went into the public square and floated an idea. Nobody happened to care.

With some speeches, people are incited to cheer. With others people are incited to tune out. Others, we think about. Others incite us to respond with our own speeches and writings. Maybe argument and debate. Speeches begetting speeches… Others inspire us to do things it is legal to do.

The government should have no ability to regulate any of that activity at all. And even more emphatically than that, the government should never seek to regulate speech based on the content of the speech. We don’t want the government picking what is good to say and what is hateful, and then looking at the content of what we say and determining for us “what you said there was good, and what you said there was bad”. In the basic political forum of adults speaking with adults, government doesn’t get to judge the content of what we say. We get to say “the government is shit, and everyone needs to be thrown out of office and we need new judges and we need new policemen” and the entire government has to let me say whatever the hell we want.

But then, some speeches incite people to destroy property. Only at this point, do we allow the government step in, by making a law against ‘speech that incites violence.’

Any speech, hate speech, love speech, convincing logical argument, whatever - if speech directly leads to, or incites violence, that speech is a crime.

(And I think you can get caught inciting a crime even if the crime is thwarted mid-stream, if the “violence” itself is slight, only because it was stopped by a security guard or something... digression…)

There is no need to look at whether the woman hated anyone. We don’t need to know her motivation. Dehumanizing words may explain why all those white-men-haters were so inspired and incited to destroy the dealership, but we don’t need to know their motivations either, because the woman’s words “destroy the dealership” and the rubble, with the violent mob connecting them, we can show that speech incited violence and arrest people.

So the “that dehumanizes others” is superfluous in application of the law.

Unless you are trying to make a law that allows government to arrest and convict people for speech before it leads to actual ‘physical violence’.

That’s too minority report. Now the government gets to judge how successful your incitement was likely to be. New definition is “Dehumanizing words, that could lead to physical violence”.

Now the law is hopelessly subjective/vague around the “incites” prong, and the “physical violence against them” part is superfluous.

Instead of working with the more specific “hate” speech that incites violence, we add add an “aggravated” speech that incites violence version of the law. If someone is a vile, hateful racist, you don’t need to prove what dehumanizes, and instead just need to show generally how the hate aggravated things, and give a lot of leeway for harsh sentences - like incitement to violence is 2-12 years, and aggravated, is 10-30 years..

——

The UK is putting people in jail because they post extremely violent and dehumanizing rap lyrics on Facebook. A woman’s son died, and it was his favorite song, she posted the lyrics, and she was in jail and before the court, and back in prison for months. So wrong. That’s hate speech legislation applied.

There is no need to give the government so much power - power to screw up - and to give away our free speech rights just so that the government can take this power, and inevitably screw up application of the law, or worse, intentionally weaponize the law against political opposition.

the lowest class…always talking about persons. — Attributed to Henry Thomas Buckle

Interesting idea, but really, what person are you talking about? :joke:

If you haven’t yet caught on to what I’ve been saying in my posts, I agree that making laws against hate speech in the US can easily become utterly dystopian. It then follows that laws against hate speech in the US ought best not be made.

So we agree that hate speech is bad, that it can lead to mass murders and genocides, and, hence, that ideally it should not occur. And we agree that government sanctioned laws against hate speech in the US would also be bad due to their quite plausible potential to become perversely interpreted. Where we’re not yet clear on is the following:

Should there be a system of checks and balances within society to mitigate speech which dehumanizes and incites violence against others? And, if so, what ought these checks and balances within society be?
For example, I’ve heard a lot of disparaging in my life of political correctness. The tyranny of such and so forth. So if we take away all political correctness, what checks and balances remain to prevent speech that can easily lead to mass murders and genocides?

So if we take away all political correctness, what checks and balances remain to prevent speech that can easily lead to mass murders and genocides?

More often than not, hate speech incites violence on the one who speaks it. It’s why police defend the KKK and the American Nazi party to hold their rally’s and marches, in order to protect them from violence. That threat of violence is always there, I suppose, and acts as somewhat of a deterrent.

On the other hand, hate preachers, holocaust deniers, and racists of all types are viewed as cranks in American culture. Chomsky makes this point, that anyone can publish works of holocaust denial in the US and no one really pays them much notice. If you do that in Europe, where it is often illegal, their work gets all sorts of press.



If you’re ever in New York go watch the Black Hebrew Israelites hold their very public displays of street preaching. They speak hate speech pretty much daily, out in the open, with little to no effect on anyone. It’s almost comical to watch.

At any rate, the idea that free speech leads to genocide is ridiculous in my view. No government ever involved in genocide had any commitment to free speech. In fact, quite the opposite. Clearly the issue is state-sanctioned mass murder.

I believe the checks and balances is greater free speech.

Does all this then mean you approve of the political correctness which societally, though not legally, mitigates hate speech as previously defined, this as the optimal mode of societal checks and balances?

More often than not, hate speech incites violence on the one who speaks it. It’s why police defend the KKK and the American Nazi party to hold their rally’s and marches, in order to protect them from violence — NOS4A2

So incitement is possible? Glad you came around in the end.

If you haven’t yet caught on to what I’ve been saying in my posts, I agree that making laws against hate speech in the US can easily become utterly dystopian. — javra

I did understand that, and so I should have said in my last post “so let me put the legal status of ‘hate speech’ to bed, and show why I agree with you that this need not be a legal issue.”

I am curious if you agree that “dehumanizes” is superfluous to how a proposed hate speech law would be enforced. Or that giving the government the power to adjudicate what is hateful and what isn’t creates the dystopia you just referenced. You agree with those two things?

Should there be a system of checks and balances within society to mitigate speech which dehumanizes and incites violence against others? And, if so, what ought these checks and balances within society be? — javra

No. We don’t need a “system” for this. We need more speech. We need the same exact system that allows for all speech. Hate speech is checked by reasonable rebuttal. Haters are always unreasonable, always ignorant, easy to prove they are incoherent and self-contradictory and ignorant. We all owe each other more respect and humility than a hate speaker can muster, so hating is a breakdown within the hater. And it is only defeated by changing minds and hearts through more speech.

But you said speech “which dehumanizes and incites violence”. Why do you keep bringing up “incites violence”? If it “incites violence” it’s a legal issue again, and we already have a system to put the violence in check.

I think you are worried about this: “speech that dehumanizes and could possibly incite terrible violence”.

Is that more accurate? If you keep bringing “incites violence” into it, then yes, we need the legal system we have in place to check against such incitement. We don’t need a hate speech law, we have laws to handle anything that incites violence.

If you take out actual incitement, evidenced by actual violence, and just have someone spewing hate speech, then no new system makes any sense to me, just more speech, and common sense and rebuttal and education - maybe forgiveness and mercy are needed.

How would we systematize peaceful dialogue? The only way I see is to hear out the haters. And hear out everyone else.

The response to hate speech is rebuttal speech, it seems to me.

If you are not talking about the legal system, I don’t know what social system you imagine could effectively stop a hater from hating out loud. Besides common courtesy, education in respect, education in love and forgiveness - all basically more speech.

The only real system to defeat hate is a moral system. Society has been trying to set that system up since the first Shaman said “listen to me”.

We each get to be Shaman in a free society, so I think the only system to combat hate speech is more speech.

As soon as hate invites violence, then the government pounces. Then the issue is no longer the speech or the hate though, it’s the violence.

———

Do you think speech IS violence when it is hate speech?

I have a few questions up above, so, I appreciate your time.

hate preachers, holocaust deniers, and racists of all types are viewed as cranks in American culture. Chomsky makes this point, that anyone can publish works of holocaust denial in the US and no one really pays them much notice. If you do that in Europe, where it is often illegal, their work gets all sorts of press. — NOS4A2

:up:

That shows one of the disconnects between progressive intentions and the actual effects of progressive policy on hate speech. There are others.

Sure, no one should be denying the holocaust - it’s a horrible, painfully provable fact. So any fool who denies facts should stick to their mom’s basement and listen to people when they tell him to shut up.

But progressive outrage leading to hate speech law to silence idiotic bullshit, ends up highlighting the idiotic bullshit - dragging it through court for a full hearing, answer the media’s questions so they can do an Op Ed. And in the end, the hate speech policy intended to silence hate speech, advertises and promotes it.

So incitement is possible? Glad you came around in the end. — Michael

Totally true.

you do have some ‘splaining to do.

On the other thread you would never have said this:

…speech incites violence… — NOS4A2

You do realize “to incite” is “to cause”.

So I agree with WHAT you are concluding here on this thread, but I have a feeling I still disagree with HOW you come to this conclusion per the other thread.

I have a few questions up above, so, I appreciate your time. — Fire Ologist

As always, no problem.

Do you think speech IS violence when it is hate speech? — Fire Ologist

No. It can be quite harmful depending on subtext and context, but not all harm is violence. So, again, no.

I am curious if you agree that “dehumanizes” is superfluous to how a proposed hate speech law would be enforced. — Fire Ologist

Yes. But since we are not talking about laws I find this to be quite superfluous to the issue. To communally deem another people to be subhuman is a) unethical because it is b) harmful and can furthermore readily result in physical violence against them. And, as always, subtext and context matter in what is expressed: If I cordially tell a close friend, "f*ck you, you dog" in reply to a comment they make, this is in no way dehumanization. The same thing told to a complete stranger I detest would most likely be.

Or that giving the government the power to adjudicate what is hateful and what isn’t creates the dystopia you just referenced. You agree with those two things? — Fire Ologist

Again, yes: as always, I agree.

But you said speech “which dehumanizes and incites violence”. Why do you keep bringing up “incites violence”? If it “incites violence” it’s a legal issue again, and we already have a system to put the violence in check. — Fire Ologist

Because I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about what is right and beneficial. Should I begin to justify why a person dehumanizing another person is wrong and detrimental? (a rhetorical question on my part)

I think you are worried about this: “speech that dehumanizes and could possibly incite terrible violence”.

Is that more accurate? — Fire Ologist

No. I'm partly concerned about speech that dehumanizes, in and of itself.

I think that about covers all the non-rhetorical questions you've asked.

To reemphasize my position:

I, again, fully sponsor that the possibility of Orwellianized thought can occur at any time and in any way: physical defense against a physical assailant can become deemed physical violence and hence criminal; and vice versa: for instance, a mass murderer shooting people on the streets from building tops can be deemed to have only been engaging in legally protected self-defense against those who’d take away his/her human rights. Both are perverse interpretations of what is ethical: The victim becomes “the victimizer” and the victimizer “the victim”. Something quite common in authoritarian systems and mindsets. And it is how tyrants gain power. All these judgments which attempt to influence others in terms of what-is-what and what should be done about it being first and foremost speech. And the issue of hate speech is by no means an exception.

Having reaffirmed that about Orwellian speech, is it anyone’s belief hereabout that more hate speech will mitigate the hate speech that might otherwise occur?

Here’s an analogy that I so far don’t find faulty: one rotten apple will spoil the bunch; the remedy to this so as to have a healthy group of apples is to add more rotten apples to the group. Replace “apples” with “humans” and “healthy” with “ethical”. The same conundrum results. The end result is the absence of health/ethics in the given cohort.

If you anyone sees it otherwise, can you then explain how hatred toward a dehumanized other (and an increased occurrence of it in opposing directions) can bring about greater equality of rights for all within the given community? The latter, as I think at least all Americans agree, being a necessarily upheld value in any functional democracy/republic.

To be quite clear: does anyone hereabout endorse the use of hate speech as beneficial? Rather than merely endorsing the absence of sanctioned laws against it.

So back to non-legally sanctioned systems of checks and balances. A lot of people have turned the term “political correctness” from one signifying “politically ethical conduct” into meaning something more or less along the lines of “our tyrannical oppression by those with opposing political views”. Granted, this can well be the case in any Orwellian society: within a self-labeled fascism or communism, what is politically correct will be that which is, at least for the most part, unethical, and it will tyrannically oppress those who strive for an ethical society. Well, to not re-ask the same thing in different terms, I will here simply repost what has so far not been directly addressed:

[...] I’ve heard a lot of disparaging in my life of political correctness. The tyranny of such and so forth. So if we take away all political correctness, what checks and balances remain to prevent speech that can easily lead to mass murders and genocides? — javra

Your time in replying to the non-rhetorical questions posed would likewise be appreciated.

And just as a reminder, this thread and its OP is pivoted on the idea that the very notion of hate speech is in and of itself detrimental and, thereby, unethical. It is this which I disagree with.

I appreciate your continuing with this thread, Javra. I'd given it away, as on a par with the discussions of gun law and transgender issues - too fraught with high dudgeon to progress.

This caught my eye:

Do you think speech IS violence when it is hate speech?
— Fire Ologist

No. It can be quite harmful depending on subtext and context, but not all harm is violence. So, again, no. — javra

From earlier:

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. — Banno

Do we say that, since the act of shooting was not constitutive of the utterance of the first man, that the utterance was not a violent act? Well, is the issue here whether the utterance is violent, or whether the utterer is culpable? What part does the man giving the order have in the death of the woman?

You presented an interesting argument earlier, in response to assertions that utterances could not injure. You asked if Hitler injured people through his utterances. I don't think you received an answer, those you were addressing instead choosing to take offence by interpreting your argument as comparing them to Hitler - a merely rhetorical move, and somewhat sanctimonious given their attitude towards causing offence via mere words.

Perhaps the account I gave, from Searle via Langton, avoids the offence while maintaining the point. Can we sidestep the rhetorical deflection, and focus on the function of language in the action described. Do we hold the speaker responsible for the killing, despite his not having pulled the trigger?

It's also worth noting that the argument is not that all hate speech causes violence - another rhetorical ploy being used here. It's more about the othering that is central to hate speech, together with the issue of the culpability of the speaker in subsequent violence.

Cheers.

It's also worth noting that the argument is not that all hate speech causes violence - another rhetorical ploy being used here. It's more about the othering that is central to hate speech, together with the issue of the culpability of the speaker in subsequent violence. — Banno

That seems important here. The way people are spoken to and described by others shapes how they see themselves, how valued they feel and how they are seen and understood within a culture, and can even legitimize certain kinds of treatment by others. Consider those who are homeless, so often described in public discourse as “deros,” “junkies,” or subhuman monsters. Much easier to have them killed or carted away somewhere if they don't qualify as citizens. It seems strange to think that language has no power or effect on behavior. Why would we have advertising, prayer, speeches or Fox News if language was powerless?

Why would we have advertising, prayer, speeches or Fox News if language was powerless? — Tom Storm

Indeed.

But that is the opinion expressed hereabouts. It has a place in the Sovereign Citizen virus, which has become more prominent Dow Nunder. It's part of the great myth of individualism.

Yeah, I guess it comes down to a difference in worldview or disposition. There’s not much point in debating it and I’m a poor debater.

I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about what is right and beneficial. — javra

I'm partly concerned about speech that dehumanizes, in and of itself. — javra

Ok, so just be sure we are eye to eye, in the former phrase “speech that dehumanizes and incites physical violence” you are more interested in addressing the “speech that dehumanizes” part, not the “incites violence” part. Which makes sense, because I think we dispensed with the “incites violence” part as a legal issue that is already addressed in the law and need have nothing to do with hate speech, which we’ve clarified has to do with “speech that dehumanizes”.

So now, this seems to me, would not be a political discussion but is a moral/ethical one. Maybe psychological or developmental. Maybe even linguistic, or aesthetic.

But all of this speech we are taking about is free - because we aren’t begging the government show up because of any violence that was incited by the speech.

physical defense against a physical assailant … and …a mass murderer shooting people on the streets ….. Both are perverse interpretations of what is ethical: — javra

Focused on ethics, got it. I stripped this down. But I don’t agree there is no such thing as ethical self-defense. Nor would I agree sniping from a roof top, unless a soldier in war, could ever be deemed self-defense.

Not sure I am following here.

The victim becomes “the victimizer” and the victimizer “the victim”. — javra

So does the victim become the victimizer, meaning circumstances change as x-victim becomes x-victimizer, or are you saying x was never really a victim? I think the former. But since you equated self defense with murder, I am not sure. So maybe I misunderstand. Can you restate your point here? How is self defense that leads to death the same as murder, if that is part of your idea here?

Something quite common in authoritarian systems and mindsets. — javra

“physical defense against a physical assailant … and …a murderer” seem common to humanity. We seem to be veering back towards who is fascist and the political again (which begs questions of law and government intervention, legal systems).

is it anyone’s belief hereabout that more hate speech will mitigate the hate speech that might otherwise occur?

Here’s an analogy that I so far don’t find faulty: one rotten apple will spoil the bunch; — javra

So one hate speaker spawns a whole bunch of hate speakers. That’s called social media these days. :joke: But the trick is to respond to hate speech with… rational speech. Then, the rotten apple either heals and becomes healthy, or it continues to rot on its own - but responsible adults need not fear being spoiled because of someone else’s speech. I don’t think we can somehow ban all rotten apples. We need to deal with them. And if they incite violence, well, we already agree there.

can you then explain how hatred toward a dehumanized other (and an increased occurrence of it in opposing directions) can bring about greater equality of rights for all within the given community? — javra

I couldn’t explain that. That sounds more like it would lead to civil war, not greater equality.

does anyone hereabout endorse the use of hate speech as beneficial? — javra

Well, no. But who gets to decide what is hateful and what is not? Free speech is beneficial. If someone uses that freedom to spew hate, that’s now open to rebuttal.

I think we have to recall there are various things people can do and can incite when they speak. Hitler used words to effect genocidal murder all across Europe. Those words were not “free speech”. He wasn’t debating, arguing, convincing, defining - he was ordering, directing action, murdering...

Free speech is sacrosanct when it is political speech - debate among policy makers and elected officials and in political campaigns, and between two adults in a lounge.

[...] I’ve heard a lot of disparaging in my life of political correctness. The tyranny of such and so forth. So if we take away all political correctness, what checks and balances remain to prevent speech that can easily lead to mass murders and genocides? — javra

I agree with the thrust of where you are going here - the term “political correctness” is a misused weaponized frisbee. Many disparage the term itself. People usually use the term when they disagree with what they perceive the majority is demanding they think or say. Like “it’s politically correct to say ‘women can do anything men can do’ but I disagree.” That’s when you see the term “politically correct” - when someone disagrees with what they see as the majority (polis) opinion of correctness.

But you are right. Political correctness is akin to simply being polite. If we took away all sense of political correctness, we would descend into verbal war, and likely incite violence.

That said, we just have to remember that we can’t make laws about what is politically correct or incorrect to say. And I personally don’t need any hard and fast rules. The law is that we can say anything. With that freedom we need to work out a polite society, together, hearing all opinions. And in that free process, we are going to hear some hateful shit. I believe that is unfortunately the best we can do.

[...] what checks and balances remain to prevent speech that can easily lead to mass murders and genocides? — javra

See, you just slipped in “can easily lead”. Do you really need a check for speech, meaning a mechanism to stop speech, if that speech merely “can” possibly lead to….anything? I mean what else can a speech lead to? We’ll never know if we stop it before we hear it.

You sound to me like you are trying to find away to regulate the speech of other people. Not by government maybe, but that there are things that, if even spoken, by default, require some sort of approbation or punishment.

What I would say is, we all know that crap when we hear it (because we know how to be polite). I’d rather hear it, and deal with it with more speech, then come up with some system that states it can never be spoken.

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. — Banno

I think it should be clear by now that speech isn’t always political. You can do other things besides debate using words, like giving commands to shoot.

We went through this analysis above with “incites physical violence.”
See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1014774

Speech that incites physical violence can be regulated and punished. We all agree there.

in response to assertions that utterances could not injure. You asked if Hitler injured people through his utterances. — Banno

I was so thorough about that, @javra had to tell me stop talking about it. Speech that incites violence gets regulated. Hitler did murder. No one contests that.

But we don’t need to define “hate speech” to regulate anything that incites violence, and all we need to do is look at the violence to understand how to regulate it. It can be emotionless speech (as in “shoot her”) and it becomes illegal if someone attempts or effectuates murder because of it.

But Banno, and @Tom Storm, what happens if the second man doesn’t shoot anyone? The Austin hypo is pretty stark - I mean such a cold “shoot her” - but what about something more realistic. Someone is spewing hate, stirring up a vigilante gang to go do murder, and everyone just mocks the guy and goes home. I agree the police need to check the obvious mental health and safety based on that scene, but do you want to just arrest him?

Dont you think we can regulate this without getting into the content of people’s speech? Or do we need banned words like Facebook?

Is there a forum for adults where absolutely everything and anything can legally be spoken, or do you think that is dangerous? I see more danger in NOT having a forum for all political speech.

I appreciate your continuing with this thread, Javra. I'd given it away, as on a par with the discussions of gun law and transgender issues - too fraught with high dudgeon to progress. — Banno

Well, thanks. I appreciate that. Cheers. Yup, going about to doing other things is on my current list of things to do.

Do we say that, since the act of shooting was not constitutive of the utterance of the first man, that the utterance was not a violent act? Well, is the issue here whether the utterance is violent, or whether the utterer is culpable? What part does the man giving the order have in the death of the woman? — Banno

As with the example you've given, when a mafia boss, or Charles Manson, tells others “I want them dead” and these others then commit murders, of course the mafia boss / Charles Manson / Hitler / anyone who so says and thereby influences, really, will be culpable for the murders that ensue. In one train of thought wherein causes are defined counterfactually, because no murder would have occurred were it not for the given person so saying that it should, the person so saying that it should can well be deemed a partial cause for the murder. Otherwise Charles Manson should have remained a free man.

But the statement doesn’t need in any way forceful in order to so be a partial cause. And if the statement is not forcefully aggressive, I so far don’t find that it could be described as a violent statement and thus an instance of violence. That said, or course, the statement does cause violence to take place.

You presented an interesting argument earlier, in response to assertions that utterances could not injure. You asked if Hitler injured people through his utterances. I don't think you received an answer,. — Banno

Nope, I didn't receive an answer.

Perhaps the account I gave, from Searle via Langton, avoids the offence while maintaining the point. Can we sidestep the rhetorical deflection, and focus on the function of language in the action described. Do we hold the speaker responsible for the killing, despite his not having pulled the trigger? — Banno

Sure. Sounds good. Maybe the issue of whether Charles Manson should or should not have been incarcerated would likewise help out (Like Hitler, the guy never committed any murders with his own hands. He just said stuff).

Till next time.

So now, this seems to me, would not be a political discussion but is a moral/ethical one. — Fire Ologist

I’m baffled by your once again separating politics from ethics/morality. For one thing, you previously agreed the two are entwined. This would mean not separate.

Not sure I am following here. — Fire Ologist

You previously brought in the notion of Orwellian issues. Orwell wrote two political fictions: “Animal Farm” whose dystopia can be boiled down to the dictum that “some members of the community are more equal than others” and “1984” whose dystopia could be epitomized by the slogans of the Ministry of Truth: “War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength” … to which could be added something along the lines of “Hate is Compassion”. All these could be argued for. For example: it is war that makes peace possible, to aspire to states of freedom is to be enslaved to an ideal of freedom, to be ignorant of what the powers that be do is to remain safe and sound and immune from external forces and harms and thereby be strong, and, as to my add-on, to actively hate “the other” is to maintain compassion for the in-group and oneself. Nonetheless, all these—both when looked at at face value and when inquired into deeper—are absurdities that, in one way or another, require double-think to be maintained. The same applies to the Orwellian thoughts I addressed in my previous post. But to engage in justifications, and potential ensuing debates, for why this is so is not something that I currently have the free time for.

But you are right. Political correctness is akin to simply being polite. If we took away all sense of political correctness, we would descend into verbal war, and likely incite violence. — Fire Ologist

Given the general statements you made, in relation to the topic of this thread, we then don’t disagree on anything of much importance. We’re both on the same page when it comes to the following: hate speech is bad for society, it is dangerous to criminalize, and the preservation of free speech should bring about a system of checks and balances within society to mitigate it.

For my part, I’ll leave it at that.

Maybe the issue of whether Charles Manson should or should not have been incarcerated would likewise help out — javra

The problem is he knowingly and specifically went out of the way, to target vulnerable people who in their disheveled state of life and mind would basically believe anything. To his credit, he wasn't your average simpleton, he knew his way around a conversation, shall we say. But it's not like he was out meeting doctorates with degrees and legitimately convincing them of his views. I mean, it's only human to cast a line where you know the fish will bite, no?